Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL FINANCE

Taxation Yield

Mr. Redmond: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer by what proportion direct taxation would have to be increased to produce the same yield as value added tax; and what would be the rates of corporation and personal income tax which would result.

The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr.John Nott): The yield of value added tax for 1973–74 is about 20 per cent, of the yield of all Inland Revenue duties, so that those duties would have all to be increased by approximately one-fifth. This would result in rates of income tax for 1973–74 ranging from 36 per cent. to 90 per cent., with an investment income surcharge of 18 per cent. The rate of corporation tax would be 47 per cent. compared with the present 40 per cent.

Mr. Redmond: Is not the real answer to this that if the policies advocated by the Opposition were to be implemented the threshold of direct taxation would have to come down, affecting the lower paid and undoing the work done by the Government in that respect?

Mr. Nott: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The tax threshold, which we have raised considerably while we have been in office, would of course fall should the Labour Party ever come to power again and there would be greatly increased taxation on the ordinary people of this country.

Mr. Jay: Will the Minister say what the rate of VAT would have to be if income tax and corporation tax were abolished?

Mr. Nott: I cannot answer that question without notice.

Mr. Brian Walden: Will the Minister agree that it is utter twaddle to try to compare indirect and direct taxation in this way? Will he make an estimate of what the various rates of taxes would be if value added tax had never been introduced and if we had stuck to purchase tax and selective employment tax, if we had not joined the Common Market and if we never had to pay for the common agricultural policy and various matters of that nature?

Mr. Nott: If we had set out to raise the same amount of revenue from indirect taxation as when the Labour Party was in office, value added tax would have had to come in at a rate of 15 per cent. instead of 10 per cent. In 1969 indirect taxation represented 156 per cent. of the gross national product. By 1972 we had reduced indirect taxation and the figure had come down to 12·9 per cent.

Mr. Knox: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what were the percentages of the revenue taken in direct taxation and indirect taxation in the year 1972– 73;and how the figures compare with those in the year 1969–70.

Mr. Nott: Figures for the financial year 1972–73 are not yet available. For the calendar year 1972 the share of central Government's total current receipts taken by direct and indirect taxation were 40· per cent. and 34·4 per cent. respectively. This compares with 39·9 per cent. and 38-8 per cent. for 1969.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that the figures show clearly that the tax changes which have taken place under the present Government have favoured less-well-off people rather than those who are well off?

Mr. Nott: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The biggest single tax cut made by the Government was in direct taxation. The increase in personal allowances made in last year's Budget gave the equivalent of £1 a week to every family. That, of course, was of particular benefit to the lower paid. The decreases in indirect taxation have also been of great importance.

Value Added Tax

Mr. Horam: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he is satisfied with the way the introduction of VAT has worked in practice.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Anthony Barber): Bearing in mind that the abolition of purchase tax and SET and the introduction of VAT has involved the biggest change in our taxation system since the war, the transition has gone reasonably well. I should like in particular to thank and congratulate all those in the retail trade and the business community generally for the way in which they have co-operated.

Mr. Horam: Will the Chancellor explain how it is that in the case of taxi-cabs owner-drivers have to pay no VAT while hire drivers have to pay 3 per cent., even if they earn less than £5,000 a year? Will he give any information that the Government have on the extent to which people who provide services are not deducting SET and are still charging the full rate of VAT?

Mr. Barber: We spent a lot of time last year debating the circumstances of individual traders and business people and how VAT would affect them. We gave careful consideration and debate here to the question of taxis and transport generally. If the hon. Member has any specific questions he would like to put down, I hope he will do so and I and my hon. Friends will be glad to answer them.
It is natural that the stories about the difficulties should attract attention, but certainly the reports I have had from the tax officers and also from those who are monitoring prices show that the vast majority of traders have co-operated in the changeover efficiently and fairly.

Mr. Wilkinson: Will my right hon. Friend clarify the position concerning vending machines which dispense food and drink, and say how the introduction of VAT fits in with phase 2 guidelines under the counter-inflation policy?

Mr. Barber: The action we have taken on VAT is consistent with the proposals for phase 2, but if my hon. Friend has a particular aspect in mind it will be much better for the general interest if he puts down a specific Question which could then be answered.

Mr. Healey: Is the Chancellor aware that value added tax is already giving a major new boost to price inflation, running at 8 per cent., over which he is presiding, and that, according to his right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, in the first few days after the introduction of the tax there were 11,000 complaints that retailers were taking advantage of it to make unjustified price increases? Moreover, it is already clear that weights and measures authorities are quite incapable of monitoring the price increases as the Government intended and that on many vital issues the Customs and Excise is still unable to give a ruling.

Mr. Barber: I realise that the Opposition, and the right hon. Gentleman in particular, take the view that all shopkeepers are cheats. The fact is that the overwhelming majority of traders have co-operated magnificently in what has been a major changeover, the biggest change in taxation since the end of the war.
With regard to the suggestion that the tax is having an effect on prices, the right hon. Gentleman would do well to recall that virtually every family—large or small, young or old, rich or poor— will be paying less tax on its spending with VAT than it would if purchase tax and SET had continued at the rates of the Government of which he was a member for six years.

Mr. Winterton: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to provide for the refund of VAT in respect of services provided on credit where bad debts are suffered.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): No, Sir.

Mr. Winterton: I thank my hon. Friend for that rather negative reply. I wish to draw his attention to the problems of the plant hire industry. Is he aware that even the medium- to small-size plant hire company, with good and effective credit control, could make a contribution to the Exchequer in respect of VAT on bad debts of approximately £5,000 a year? Is he prepared to take action during Report on the Finance Bill to try to ensure that this loss of investment to the plant hire industry can be rectified?

Mr. Higgins: I do not think it is true to describe the situation in the terms which my hon. Friend has used. I agree with him entirely that my reply was somewhat negative. In fact, it was entirely negative. The reasons for the imposition of VAT on bad debts were spelt out at considerable length, as the House will recall, in Committee on the Finance Bill on 23rd May 1972. The debate continued until 24th May. On that occasion, in the interim, I provided the Committee with figures and arithmetical examples showing precisely what were the issues at stake. I think that greatly helped our debate and helped the House to reach the conclusion that it would not be right to give bad debt relief. I should not like to hold out any hope for a reversal of that decision.

Mr. Sheldon: Is it not the case that when a trader is faced with a bad debt he not only loses money on the debt but has to pay VAT on the loss which he has incurred? It cannot be right both to lose the debt and to have to endure the final insult of having to pay VAT upon that debt.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman is taking a somewhat different line from that which he took in the last debate when the matter was discussed at great length. The main point in principle is that normally by the time a debt becomes bad the debtor, if a taxable person, will already have taken the credit in his own VAT account for the VAT element, and there would be a double loss of tax for the Exchequer. That was spelt out at great length in Committee and many arithmetical examples were given last year. The Government see no reason to change the view that they took on this matter, which was generally acceptable to the House.

Mr. Edward Lyons: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will take steps to arrange for income from pin tables, at present an exempt supply, and income from bar billiards, at present standard rated, to be treated in the same way for value added tax.

Mr. Higgins: No, Sir. Receipts from a pin table are exempt as it is a game of chance; those from bar billiards are outside the scope of the exemption as it is not a game of chance.

Mr. Lyons: If gambling is free of VAT but games of skill are taxed, is it the policy of the Government, in this sector as in others, to encourage gambling and discourage skill?

Mr. Higgins: That would be to widen the principle too far. The point is clear and the House understands it. Most betting and gaming is already subject to other duties specifically designed for them and this seemed to us to be a sensible arrangement.

Mr. Judd: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will call a representative round-table conference of charities of different kinds and sizes to review the impact of VAT upon their work.

Mr. Higgins: No, Sir.

Mr. Judd: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of bewilderment and genuine anxiety amongst a large number of charities and similar voluntary service agencies? As they understand it, the Government are keen to stimulate voluntary action in society yet, with the exception of a small handful of larger charities which were to some extent compensated by the Chancellor's recent concessions, the majority of charities have been gravely penalised. The hon. Gentleman has only to consider the predicament of the Samaritans, for example, who are dependent greatly on the telephone which is now subjected to VAT. Would it not be sensible for Treasury Ministers to get together with a wide cross-section of the charities and see how these problems can be dealt with?

Mr. Higgins: The Government could not have taken more action to consult charities than they have done. We have done everything possible. We published a Green Paper far in advance of the introduction of VAT. We welcomed all representations which were made. Last year my right hon. Friend also asked for further representations, which were received, carefully analysed by Customs and Excise and fully considered. As a result, we made further changes.
In the overall situation, it has never been accepted by the House that charities should be relieved of all consumer taxes, such as purchase tax and petrol tax, but


I remind the House that, quite apart from that, my right hon. Friend has made major changes which are of considerable benefit to charities.

Mr. Judd: To a few of them.

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman says that they have been made only for a few. I do not accept that view. My right hon. Friend has made provision with regard to estate duty, for example, in that none of the legacies of up to £50,000 left to charities will be liable; none of the transactions whose proceeds go to charity will be liable to capital gains tax; charities primarily established for the relief of distress are zero rated on resale by the charity; all goods exported by any charity are zero rated; goods and services provided by charities for the relief of distress at below cost are outside the scope of the tax; and with regard to income tax my right hon. Friend has provided transitional arrangements for covenants. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] It is no good hon. Members asking on the one hand for more concessions and then, when I point out to them what has been done, shouting "Too long". I think it is perfectly right to give this list. As we have pointed out, the net cost of these concessions will be £20 million.

Dr. Stuttaford: But does not my hon. Friend understand that the charities to which he is referring are the larger and better established charities? There are newer charities, particularly those dealing with welfare, such as the Samaritans and the friends of hospitals, and funds are also collected by public subscription for individual items. I have one of these latter cases in my constituency where a collection is being made for a kidney machine. Yet this good and neighbourly work is being penalised by taxation, to the eventual cost of the Exchequer.

Mr. Higgins: There is a later Question about kidney machines and it would be more appropriate for me to answer the point then. I have read out a very long list of concessions of considerable benefit to charities. It is the case that charities as a whole will benefit substantially by about £20 million this year, and the dynamic effects of the concessions on giving, which are consistent with our manifesto pledge, must be added to the other provisions which I gave in my list.

Mr. Healey: We welcome the concessions which the Government have made and which we pressed for consistently during discussion of last year's Finance Act. But a large number of charities will be a great deal worse off. Was it really the Chancellor's intention that they should be worse off? If not, will he take action to see that they are not worse off? Will he look particularly into the situation of the Churches, which are deeply concerned about the impact of VAT on them? Is he aware of the recent estimate by a responsible official of the Church of England that VAT will mean an increased cost to the Church of England of £1½ million in the coming year?

Mr. Higgins: We have studied the figures very carefully. My right hon. Friend has made an additional concession to the Churches with regard to covenants, which are of considerable importance to them. On the overall aspect, however, the right hon. Gentleman cannot tell me of an occasion when the Labour Government, of which he was a leading member, reduced taxes on charities or gave concessions to charities worth £20 million.

Mr. Judd: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest opportunity.

Dr. Marshall: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer why he refuses to remove the imposition of value added tax on toilet paper and sanitary towels.

Mr. Higgins: Because value added tax is a broadly-based tax on consumer expenditure. Relief has been given from VAT for the main items of expenditure of importance to low income families and there is no reason to suppose that this changeover from purchase tax and SET to VAT will be regressive or have a significant effect on the general level of prices.

Dr. Marshall: Are not these items which were exempt from purchase tax basic necessities of life, so that value added tax is in effect a tax on being alive, the first poll tax we have had in this country since 1698?

Mr. Higgins: The hon. Gentleman refers to the "tax", which is the crux of the matter. It is very important to look at the overall picture of the tax as a whole. It is obviously quite absurd to look at the effect on individual items. That being so, we have made it clear throughout that some items will bear an increased burden of taxation while some will bear a lesser burden. There is no reason to suppose that, in its overall effect, the tax will be regressive or will have a significant effect on the general level of prices.

Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg: Will my hon. Friend accept that there is considerable feeling on both sides of the House that this tax is moving towards the same sort of situation as purchase tax was in and may require the intervention again of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) to show up the stupidities which are beginning to creep in? Will my hon. Friend at least say that he will look at this matter again with sympathy?

Mr. Higgins: I think we are moving in precisely the opposition direction from the situation which was complained about by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro), who on many occasions brought to the attention of the House the absurdities of discriminating between various items of consumer expenditure. We have given relief to those items which are of most importance to families on low incomes, thereby ensuring that the tax is not regressive.
The kinds of thing which my hon. Friend the Member for Worcestershire, South was concerned about were the absurd discriminations and line drawing which involved detailed analyses and a view taken by the man in Whitehall about what was regarded as essential and what was not. For example, it could be argued that under the purchase tax system there was considerable discrimination against men because of the tax on razor blades. We are bringing in a broadly-based tax at a single positive rate, and it is removing discrimination of the kind which my hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead (Mr. Geoffrey Finsberg) has in mind.

Mr. Jessel: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received on the question of whether kidney machines should be subject to value added tax.

Mr. Higgins: My right hon. Friend has received several letters.

Mr. Jessel: Does not my hon. Friend agree that there is a strong case for zero-rating medical requirements of this kind? I remind him of the case of my constituent who needs a kidney dialyser which costs £302. This sum is being raised by local subscription and the fact that VAT may be payable is a considerable source of local annoyance.

Mr. Higgins: This is a difficult area. We can all have sympathy with such a situation. As regards medical aids as a whole, it would not be appropriate to look at specific items because we would then rapidly be back in the old purchase tax situation, with a long list of detailed items extending over pages and pages, with continuing debate about whether or not we should add an item. We have given relief to medical aids linked to their source of supply and to clinical diagnoses or judgments by doctors or qualified staff of hospitals or nursing homes. [HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."] Hon. Members again shout "Too long", but they want sensible replies. It is a very important matter and I am making a proper reply to it. We debated this question at considerable length last year and on 16th May my hon. Friend the Minister of State made it clear why we thought that our approach to the problem was the sensible one.

Mr. Spearing: The Financial Secretary has many times said that this is a broadly-based tax and he has therefore refused requests such as that just made by his hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Jessel). Would he say why he will not give exemptions in value equal to the amount of relief in income tax in the past three years?

Mr. Higgins: I do not think that arises on this Question.

Mr. Brian Walden: As on previous Questions the Financial Secretary has given us lectures about anomalies, would he not agree that it is palpably absurd


that a kidney machine purchased by a hospital should not bear the tax while one purchased by charitable subscription does? Is not that completely ridiculous and should not the Financial Secretary, on this narrow issue, give exemptions on all kidney machines, whoever subscribes for them?

Mr. Higgins: If we were to do that, many representations would rightly be made to us and we should have changed the principle on which the tax operates on many other items of equipment for the disabled. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the speech by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on 16th May last year, because I cannot spell out the entire argument in answer to a suplementary question. If the hon. Gentleman reads the report of that speech he will see that the whole matter was debated very fully. as was the tax on aids of this kind, and that the House reached a conclusion, I think the right conclusion.

Mr. Rowlands: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he will review the application of VAT to motor-powered disabled people's chairs.

Mr. Higgins: No, Sir.

Mr. Rowlands: Is it not palpable nonsense to impose value added tax on chairs for the disabled, which make it easier for the disabled to get around? Is it not nonsense to tax the efforts of voluntary groups, such as the Merthyr Mendicants in my constituency, who have raised more than 1 million Green Shield stamps and money to buy chairs and who are coming to collect them today only to find that they need another 10 per cent. to achieve the same result?

Mr. Higgins: I understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but it must be put in the context of what was said on the two earlier Questions, the first about the overall position of charities and the second about the position of aids for the disabled. Equipment for the disabled is not relieved as such, but relief is linked to the source of supply and to the clinical diagnosis and judgment of the doctor or other qualified staff in hospital or nursing home. The whole matter was debated at considerable length. I cannot, in answer to a supplementary question, read out the entire speech by my hon. Friend the Minister of State on

that occasion, but I can say that the House accepted it.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: Will my hon. Friend be kind enough to reconsider? I ask this not because I believe he does not want to do the right thing but because this arrangement does not seem to be fair. If it does not seem to be fair, surely it is worth my hon. Friend saying that he will look at it again.

Mr. Higgins: We looked at it at great length when we debated the matter last year. We believe that we have reached the right decision. I do not accept that the solution we found was not fair. I believe that this is a more sensible arrangement than was purchase tax, and I cannot undertake to review it.

Mr. Thomas Cox: Is not the Financial Secretary aware of the inconsistencies of the effect of the tax for many local authorities? Many local authorities are installing telephones in the homes of disabled people. The effect of the tax will be to increase the cost and thus to lead to a reduction in the number of telephones that local authorities will be able to install for disabled people in their areas. Surely the observations by the Minister's hon. Friends illustrate why the matter should be looked at again.

Mr. Higgins: That is a separate question and we debated it separately last year. Different considerations apply to the supply of telephones for the disabled. Specific provisions are made in general for local authorities, particularly for their input tax, to ensure that the effect of VAT is not a burden on the rates, but that is a different matter and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the separate debate we had last year on the specific issue.

Dr. Stuttaford: Would not my hon. Friend agree that last year we discussed the theory and now we are seeing what is happening in practice, and that there is a considerable difference? In practice it is the unfairness which is causing resentment and is doing no sort of good to the cause of VAT.

Mr. Higgins: I think that the distinction is between good theory and bad theory, not between theory and practice. Our discussion last year covered all these issues and I think that we reached the right conclusion.

Mr. William Hamilton: Is it not obscene that the Government should reduce taxation by £100 million and more on sweets and ice cream and yet tax kidney machines and chairs for the disabled? Is not that an obscene policy that is indefensible?

Mr. Higgins: I do not accept that. The hon. Member must look at it in the context of the provision made for relief for items which help the disabled, subject to the source of supply. The Opposition have consistently opposed my right hon. Friend's concession on sweets, confectionery and ice cream, but those are important items in the expenditure of low-income families. The Government are determined to protect the position of low-income families and that is why the tax has been devised as it is.

Mr. Rowlands: On a point of order. In view of the unsatisfactory nature of that reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Capital Investment

Mr. Meacher: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage change compared to a year ago is shown by the last quarter capital investment figures where information is available.

Mr. Nott: The recorded level of gross domestic fixed capital formation in the fourth quarter of 1972 was little changed from its level in the corresponding quarter of 1971. But it is expected to rise strongly during 1973.

Mr. Meacher: Is not the Minister aware that the latest evidence at current prices shows not only a strike among capital investors but a collapse in profit rates last year to an all-time low of less than half the rate of a decade ago? As falling profits cannot boost capital investment, and falling capital investment cannot boost profits, is not this the death knell of private capital accumulation in this country?

Mr. Knox: Wishful thinking.

Mr. Nott: The Labour Party's unfulfilled promises of growth left a legacy of idle plant and machinery which had to be brought into productive use before new investment was made. It is

true that the share of profits in the national income has been falling for a number of years, as it has in most Western countries. Between the fourth quarter of 1971 and the corresponding quarter of 1972 the share of profits fell from 12⅓ per cent. to 11¾ per cent., while the share of wages rose from 68½ per cent. to 69⅓ per cent. I should have thought the hon. Gentleman would welcome that. As for the outlook for capital investment, all the surveys are extremely promising.

Mr. Meacher: That is wishful thinking.

Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister comment on another important item in investment—the build-up of stocks? In view of the current trade figures, will he say how much of the import figure represents items likely to be re-exported?

Mr. Nott: A substantial stock rebuilding programme appears to be in process. That has to some extent affected the import figures for March. In due course many of those stocks will come through in manufactured goods and be exported. The build-up of stocks will in the end greatly benefit our exports.

Mr. Sheldon: The House will note with surprise the Government's continuous optimism about the rate of investment in industry. The latest figures show that the level of manufacturing investment at the end of last year was lower than it had been at any period since 1967. When will the Government do something about this most important matter?

Mr. Nott: I can only repeat that all the surveys are very promising. They indicate that the level of manufacturing investment is likely to be higher in 1973–74 than for many years. Indeed, all the signs are that it could be a record.

£ Sterling (Value)

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what, on the basis of the General Index of Retail Prices, is the purchasing power of the £ sterling now, taking it as l00p in June 1970.

Mr. Parry: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the purchasing power of the £ sterling to the latest available date, taking it as l00p on 18th June 1970.

Mr. Nott: Taking the internal purchasing power of the £ sterling as l00p in June 1970, its value in February 1973 is estimated to be 81p.

Mr. Kaufman: In the light of the total failure of the price freeze revealed by that disgraceful answer, and yesterday's catastrophic trade figures, so very much worse than the June 1970 figures of which the Minister's right hon. cheat the Chancellor made so much capital in the 1970 election campaign—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not have offensive observations like that.

Mr. Kaufman: If you rule me out of order, Mr. Speaker, I obviously withdraw. The right hon. Gentleman himself used that word a few minutes ago, but I withdraw under your direction.
In the light of the facts I have stated, does the Chancellor intend to present his emergency Budget before the Whitsun Recess or before the Summer Recess?

Mr. Nott: That has nothing to do with the hon. Gentleman's original Question. I shall comment on the trade figures in answer to a later Question, if the House wishes, but the hon. Gentleman's comments do not apply to this Question.

Mr. Jay: Is it not now clear that Minister's speeches in the Budget debate this year were so complacent as to be grossly misleading? As the first year of EEC membership has coincided with a record balance of payments deficit, how much longer will the Chancellor sit by and do nothing about it?

Mr. Nott: The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that one month's figures can be thoroughly misleading. The figures in January and February were on the whole satisfactory, and exports in the past three months have been very encouraging. Most of the rise in exports was due to an increase in volume, and much was attributable to exports to the highly competitive markets of Western Europe and North America. The strong rise in imports was to a large extent due to the investment by industry in capital goods and it indicates excellent prospects for growth during this year.

Mr. Healey: But does not the Minister agree that the trade figures make total nonsense of the bouncy complacency the

Chancellor showed in a debate in the House only nine days ago, and that the appalling figures are due in large part to a devaluation of nearly 12 per cent., for which the Chancellor was responsible only a few months after inheriting the largest balance of payments surplus in our history?

Mr. Nott: I do not agree with a single word of that. Today's leading article in The Guardian is interesting. It asks the pertinent question:
can Britain afford to go on growing if the result is such an alarming trade gap?
It answers it by saying:
the evidence suggests a favourable answer.
We are going for policy of growth, and one month's trade figures can be thoroughly misleading if they are looked at in isolation. The right hon. Gentleman knows that quite well.

Mr. Healey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that with price inflation already running at 8 per cent., with Government-sponsored increases in rates, rents and mortgage interest, with the impact of VAT on prices, and the feed-through of big increases in imported raw material prices, the Government will have a major inflation on their hands by the autumn just at a time when their only means of maintaining growth in face of the balance of payments situation will be to reduce the parity still further and so increase inflation?

Mr. Noft: The right hon. Gentleman always was a prophet of gloom. I hope he will be in a more optimistic mood about the economy when he returns from the Easter Recess. He always looks on the worst of all possible situations. He always looks for the worst. The figures for February and earlier months show that the standstill has succeeded in largely halting the rise in non-food prices. In fact, prices have risen by only about ½ per cent. since November when the standstill was introduced. Therefore, the Government's prices and incomes policy is being extraordinarily successful.

European Economic Community

Mr. Jay: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much of the £5 million EEC Information Budget in the present year will be used in payment of secret


retaining fees to undisclosed persons for services to the EEC.

Mr. Higgins: None to my knowledge.

Mr. Jay: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the British public's money is involved? Is it not the duty of Ministers to find out how the money is being used and to give that information to the House?

Mr. Higgins: I shall try to make the position clear. I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman raised this question on an earlier occasion. I have made inquiries and it is my understanding, based on the inquiries made of the Commission which is responsible for the various programmes within the budgetary agreements agreed by the Council of Ministers, that no element of the British contribution is itemised in any particular section within the Commissions' budget. As my hon. Friend the Chief Secretary indicated, if the hon. Gentleman has a specific point in mind it would be helpful if he were to raise it.

Mr. Stonehouse: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely important that the standards of disclosure of the affairs of the EEC should at least be equal to those adopted by the United Kingdom? What is the hon. Gentleman doing to ensure that those standards will apply in future?

Mr. Higgins: Clearly the circumstances are not precisely the same, and both institutions must be considered on their merits. It is not immensely helpful for the right hon. Gentleman to put down a Question which indicates that he is referring to a specific matter and then to deal with the matter by way of generalities.

Mr. Heffer: asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to prevent a recurrence of the unexplained disappearance of £50 million of EEC budget funds in the year 1970.

Mr. Nott: As I told the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Deakins) on 10th April, I am not aware of any evidence that an amount of this order has been lost.—[Vol. 854, c. 265.]

Mr. Heffer: Has the hon. Gentleman had drawn to his attention the report of Mr. Heinreich Aigner, on behalf of the

Committee for Finance and Budgets of the European Parliament, which indicates that there is constant fraud in the operation of the Common Market Agricultural Fund? It is estimated that about £40 million a year is lost. No one seems to know where that money is going. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that from 1st July the Commission is proposing—the proposal will operate from 1975—that the budget will neither come before the European Parliament nor be vetted by any national Parliament in any of the EEC countries? Is it not an absolute scandal that this position should arise? What are the Government prepared to do about it?

Mr. Nott: I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets these facts—

Mr. Heffer: Read the report of the European Parliament.

Mr. Nott: The European Parliament has a budget which is discussed and which has to be agreed by the Council of Ministers. Undoubtedly frauds have taken place in the Community, but there is great confusion about the matter. Nobody quite knows from where the figure of £50 million has come. There is nothing to substantiate that such a loss has taken place. Effective control by Community institutions, and in particular, effective scrutiny by the Audit Board, is very important. With that the Government wholly agree.

Mr. Wyn Roberts: Does not this Question and what we have heard indicate that the sooner the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) joins the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) in the European Parliament the better?

Mr. Nott: If my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) feels that that would be a good idea, and that he would like the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) as a companion, I am sure that the whole House would welcome it.

Mr. Molloy: Does the Minister agree that the questions put both by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) concern money supplied by the British taxpayer? Is he prepared, on behalf of the British public to investigate what is happening to British taxpayers' money within the European Parliament?

Mr. Nott: I can understand that hon. Members are extremely interested in this important matter. Why does not the Labour Party join the European Parliament, which is the forum for discussion of these matters? The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) feels strongly about the matter, and I am sorry that the Labour Party is not participating in the discussions in the European Parliament. I agree entirely that these are matters of great importance. It is of great importance that the Audit Board's work is carried out with the maximum dispatch and with the maximum efficiency. Certainly we agree with that.

Mr. Brian Walden: Will the Government give some attention to a matter which is likely to be of great consequence to the House of Commons? Is it not the case that scrutiny of the Council of Ministers or the actions of a non-elected Parliament, which has no authority to displace the Ministers of the Council of Ministers, is nothing like the same as our system? Are there not serious constitutional matters which the Government should think about?

Mr. Nott: There are important issues at stake. As I have already said, we will press for any improvements which appear to be necessary in the Audit Board's procedures. The figure which was mentioned in the Question of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) is, I emphasise, an alleged loss which is said to have taken place in 1970 before we joined the Community.

NORTH SEA GAS AND OIL

Ql. Mr. Douglas: asked the Prime Minister if he will take personal charge of the arrangements for the next round of production and exploration licences for the United Kingdom sector of the Continental Shelf.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Alfred Morris) on 12th April.—[Vol. 854, c. 1498–9.]

Mr. Douglas: I find it difficult to recall that reply. Will the Prime Minister give an assurance that, whatever

arrangements are made for the next round of licences, this nation will receive the maximum return from the exploitation of these indigenous resources? In view of current developments, will he consider setting up a national energy commission with the additional responsibility of founding a research and development institution on the French model to deepen and widen our petroleum technology base?

The Prime Minister: I think the hon. Gentleman knows, because of the deep study he has made of the subject, that the Government have been carrying out a complete review of the whole of the licensing arrangements. As the Public Accounts Committee Report has been published, we are able to take its recommendations into account and of course we shall take note of what the hon. Gentleman has said. Obviously I cannot commit myself at this stage to agreeing to the sort of institutional arrangements that the hon. Gentleman is now suggesting. As he knows, we have ourselves made changes in the arrangements for dealing with these matters and we must see how they work.

Mr. Stonchouse: As the right hon. Gentleman has already shown his broad-mindedness by appointing Lord Rothschild to advise him on general subjects, would it not be a good idea if he were to appoint Lord Balogh to advise him in this matter?

The Prime Minister: I do not think that a further adviser is necessary.

WORKER PARTICIPATION

Mr. Wyn Roberts: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the co-ordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Department of Employment over worker participation in industry.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Roberts: Would my right hon. Friend give some indication of his views on this subject of worker participation? For example, does he think that it is a suitable subject for the future agendas of talks with the TUC and CBI? In view of the current diversity of opinion on the subject, does he not think that we should


have an early opportunity to discuss it in the House?

The Prime Minister: I should welcome a discussion of this subject in the House, because it is of great importance, but a debate is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. We touched on the subject in the original Chequers talks with the CBI and the TUC. We did not carry it very far, but I hope that in future meetings we shall be able to discuss it.

Mr. Heffer: As a step towards greater worker participation in industry, would the right hon. Gentleman like to indicate what steps are now being taken to amend the Industrial Relations Act until such time as Labour gets power and repeals it altogether? Would he say what discussions have already been held between the Secretary of State for Employment and Sir John Donaldson—I understand that they have taken place—and what has come out of those discussions and what proposals the Government are now making in relation to the Industrial Relations Act?

The Prime Minister: I have told the House on many occasions that we are prepared to consider detailed and specific proposals for amending the Industrial Relations Act. I know, as it has become public, that the TUC has been discussing the matter. We have not had any recommendations from the CBI on specific matters. We remain ready to consider any proposals.

Mr. David Steel: In view of the Prime Minister's earlier encouraging reply about the need for a debate on this important subject, may I ask whether he is aware that after the Easter Recess I shall introduce a Workers Council Bill under the Ten Minutes Rule? One constructive step that the Government could take would be to allow the House to have a full debate on that constructive measure, which is modelled closely on the successful legislation of West Germany.

The Prime Minister,: That, too, is a matter for my right hon. Friend. The Commission is now considering this matter in Brussels. It was one of the matters decided at the summit in Paris. We are also considering proposals that the Commission has been working out. I fully

appreciate what has been done in West Germany. As I told the House previously, I talked to Chancellor Brandt about it. I do not think it necessarily follows that a pattern that is suitable for one member of the Community should be completely transferred in its existing form to another member. If there is to be a debate, one would want a wider debate on various forms so as to make some sort of judgment as to what might be suitable for our own arrangements.

Sir D. Dodds-Parker: In view of my right hon. Friend's known personal interest in this subject may I ask whether he will urge the CBI and the TUC and others to hasten their studies and so help others in the European Parliament working on this important subject?

The Prime Minister: I have said that I hope we can discuss this at meetings with the TUC and the CBI. I hope that they will note what my hon. Friend has said.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the position whereby workers may lose their jobs as a result of factory closures or be made redundant without there being any consultation or any legal rights arising is a major source of anxiety in industry? Can he tell the House when he expects a reply from the CBI and the TUC about the proposals that have been put forward? Do the Government intend to legislate by means of a Companies Act during the next Session?

The Prime Minister: I cannot tell the right hon. Gentleman when the other organisations will be letting us have their views. It would obviously be a matter for consideration as to whether it is possible to fit these matters into the next Companies Act. The right hon. Gentleman will know that closures and redundancies are covered by the code of practice. I would not accept his allegation that this is causing widespread anxiety in industry because more and more firms are carrying out full consultation. We had a case raised last Tuesday in which it was claimed that the need for speedy action to avoid a takeover had not given time for consultation. We all regretted that. I do not think that that is an accusation which can be levelled across the whole of British industry.

UNITED NATIONS

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will pay an official visit to the United Nations.

The Prime Minister: I have at present no plans to make a further visit.

Mr. Molloy: When the Prime Minister decides to go to the United Nations, will he be prepared to press the case put forward by this Government and Parliament and try to find a solution to the Rhodesian problem and the grievous problems in South Africa generally? Is he aware that if these are not resolved there may be horrendous results? Is he prepared clearly to state to the United Nations that recent statements by the Foreign Secretary have the support of this Parliament, that we believe that the situation is dangerous and that we have an important rôle to play?

The Prime Minister: Our representative at the United Nations has already done that. I agree with what the hon. Gentleman says about the importance of these matters. It is accepted that it is the responsibility of the British Government to try to find a solution to the Rhodesion problem. The House knows that a settlement was worked out which was not acceptable. It is now a matter in which the races in Rhodesia must come together to try to work out their future.

Mr. Edward Taylor: Since my right hon. Friend has taken a personal interest in the plight of the 90,000 Pakistani prisoners of war and will no doubt have been glad to see the initative taken by the Indian Government yesterday to the effect that they agree in principle to the release of the prisoners, may I ask him to approach the United Nations urgently to see whether that body would be willing to supervise the complex exchange arragements for personnel, thus ensuring that this initiative does not come to nothing?

The Prime Minister: We were pleased to see the initiative yesterday. We have always said that we will help in any arrangements of this kind if the countries concerned want us to take part. I am prepared to ask our representatives at the

United Nations to discuss with the Secretary-General whether he thinks this is an area in which the United Nations can play a part. The initiative is to be welcomed and I hope that speedy means can be found to solve these problems.

Mr. Stonehouse: While I applaud the sentiments behind the Prime Minister's last reply may I ask him to consider pressing for admission to the United Nations of the newest member of the Commonwealth, namely Bangladesh, when the United Nations next meets? Is it not now apparent that the solution to the problems in that area would be made easier by such an admission?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman knows that we have been in favour of the admission of Bangladesh to the United Nations and have done our best to bring that about. It still remains a matter on which there is probably some more diplomatic activity to be carried out before we can be sure of a settlement. The right hon. Gentleman can be firmly assured that we shall do our utmost.

Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: Instead of waiting to visit the United Nations— which seems to be a modern Tower of Babel—may I ask my right hon. Friend to urge the United Nations to set aside its ideological wrangles, such as we hear from Labour benches, and mount an immediate practical operation to assist in the terrible drought conditions in India? Is he aware that this is the sort of thing that the United Nations can do best on behalf of the world? Will Her Majesty's Government support any such operation?

The Prime Minister: In fairness to the United Nations I hope my hon. and gallant Friend would agree that on past occasions it has tried to organise relief on a massive scale. We have always played a part in it. In this present situation it must be acknowledged that we have devoted a large part of our resources to helping Bangladesh in particular because we felt that this was a member of the Commonwealth which, in order of priorities, needed a great deal of help. In anything that we are able to do in the Indian sub-continent as a whole, we must be allowed to take that into account.

NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister if he will take the chair at the next meeting of the National Economic Development Council.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister when next he plans to take the chair at an NEDC meeting.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentlemen to the reply which I gave on 12th April to my hon. Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, South-West (Sir Gilbert Longden.)—[Vol. 854, c. 338.]

Mr. Carter: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell the House what the views of the NEDC are likely to be about yesterday's appalling trade figures? Can he further tell the House how the Government seem to be set to achieve the impossible, of moving from a £1,000 million balance of payments surplus to a £1,000 million balance of payments deficit in the space of two years?

The Prime Minister: It is not for me to prejudge what the members of the NEDC will say. If I may be allowed to venture an opinion, they will say "We have constantly urged you as a Government since 1970 to expand the economy. This is now taking place at the rate of something over 5 per cent. and the consequences are a steady increase in our imports to meet the demands of an expanding economy". That is what "Neddy" will say. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have to make up their minds about whether they want an expanding economy. In the circumstances which the hon. Gentleman mentioned there was stagnation and no expansion.

Mr. Meacher: Although the Prime Minister was reluctant to sanction an investigation into the payment of wages below the poverty datum line in South Africa, may I ask whether he will investigate the payment of wages below the British poverty datum line by British firms in Britain? Is he aware that one of his Ministers said recently that there are in Britain more than one-third of a million people living in the families of those in full-time work earning a poverty wage below the supplementary benefit line? Since his own policies have mani-

festly failed to help these poverty wage earners, will the right hon. Gentleman set up a commitee of inquiry?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir.

Mr. Healey: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the disturbing trade figures for March at least underline the great difficulty which this or any other Government in these circumstances will face in maintaining a 5 per cent. growth rate without a substantial increase in inflation? Is he aware that although the figures already published by the Government show that we have had 5 per cent. growth, throughout the freeze there has been a fall in real earnings because the cost of living has risen by nearly 8 per cent while earnings have gone up by only 2 per cent.? Is he further aware that there will be no chance of getting co-operation within the NEDC on a policy against inflation unless the working people who have helped to create the increase in the nation's wealth are also allowed to share in it?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman in that the figures obviously show the vital necessity of dealing with inflation. This is what the Government's policies are designed to do, and they are meeting with success. What I welcome is that those who the right hon. Gentleman described as the working people of this country have co-operated fully with stage 1 of the standstill. We are now out of that and the awards of £1 plus 4 per cent. are quite substantial by any criteria—between 7 per cent. and 8 per cent., with earnings rising in an expanding economy. This is the reason why, again, they are co-operating with stage 2.

Mr. Norman Lamont: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that one of the worrying features about Britain's international trading position has been our continuing decline in the share of the export market? Does he not further agree that while the value figures for imports announced yesterday increased sharply, largely because of increases in commodity prices, the volume figures for exports are increasing even faster? Does not that provide some ground for long-term optimism about the balance of payments?

The Prime Minister: In volume terms imports and exports have risen at about


the same rate. But the fact that stage 1 and stage 2 are operating successfully gives us grounds, with the floating pound, for believing that exports can increase faster and that we can then stabilise the situation.

Mr. Bidwell: Since the Prime Minister obviously is not worried about the growth rate, is he not worried at all about the trade figures or does he regard alarming trade figures of this kind as an inevitability and a consequence of the growth rate? Is not he concerned at all about the trade figures?

The Prime Minister: I have said that in an expanding economy—this applies especially to the British economy because such a large part of our raw materials comes from overseas—we must expect at a time of expansion and when private investment is beginning to expand that imports of raw materials will increase and that our general import figures will increase. That is to be expected. At the same time, with a floating pound, we shall see a lag in time before exports themselves increase still faster. In volume, imports and exports are moving roughly together. If we are to have sustained expansion instead of the series of stop-go which we have seen since 1945, we must see it through.

Mr. Healey: Does not the Prime Minister agree that there is little evidence that the appalling increase in imports is due to investment? Does not the evidence put out by the Department of Trade and Industry suggest that it is due largely to imports of consumer goods or goods for consumer industries and the rebuilding of stocks? The big increase in the import bill due to investment, if we get investment, is still to come and will still further worsen the balance of payment figures.

The Prime Minister: The figures show that imports of raw materials have increased substantially. That is essential if we are to expand output. There is also an element of stocking up in this because industry has been working on low stocks. When industry sees that in certain raw materials, for instance copper, world prices are rising, naturally it begins to stock up further. Those are the important elements. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that when investment in plant and machinery comes about

—and all the forecasts now are that it is coming about—if the plant and machinery comes from overseas countries it is bound to affect imports. On the other hand, when it is made here it will be the raw material side which is affected. One has to achieve a balance of these, taken over time.

TYRES (IMPORT)

Mr. Benn: (by Private Notice) asked the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether he would make a statement on the import into this country of large numbers of tyres which are unsafe for use on motor vehicles.

The Under-Secretary of Stale for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): Regulation 99 of the Department of Environment Construction and Use Regulations forbids the fitting to motor vehicles of tyres unsuitable for use on them. There has been some importation of tyres suitable for use on farm vehicles only but their use on motor vehicles is forbidden by the regulation. The Government are instituting an urgent inquiry into this matter.

Mr. Benn: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for answering the Question. Will he consider the following action? First, will he ban the import of all tyres which do not bear the manufacturer's name, given the fact that British manufacturers destroy tyres which are below the highest quality standards? Secondly, will he insist that all imported tyres are covered by a certificate that they have reached the manufacturer's quality control standards? Thirdly, will he seek urgent discussions to harmonise international standards in the quality control of tyres? Fourthly, will he seek the cooperation of the broadcasting authorities to help publicise to motorists what would be appalling dangers in terms of road safety, at high speeds especially, if large numbers of these tyres are entering the country which are in some cases put on public auction?

Mr. Grant: I can give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance on most of these points. The banning of imports is a matter which will be considered in the inquiry that we are having. Some of these tyres can properly be used off the road and for agricultural purposes. The


possibility of certification is a matter that we shall also consider urgently. The right hon. Gentleman's other point was about urgent discussions with our partners in Europe about quality standards. Certainly we shall take part in such discussions. Finally, on publicity, I should welcome any opportunity to make it clear to the motoring public that many organisations concerned have advised the motorist that he should always buy his tyres from recognised tyre specialists.

Mr. Fowler: Do not these imports indicate a most disgraceful form of racketeering? Can my hon. Friend confirm the report which appeared in the Daily Telegraph that the first imports of these tyres occurred two months ago? Will he also confirm that it is possible to take criminal proceedings against the sellers of such tyres?

Mr. Grant: I cannot confirm the newspaper report in question. We know of only one load, which I believe came into Hull. We heard about it recently. The other matter raised by my hon. Friend is one for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. But there are these regulations which create criminal offences.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: Will the hon. Gentleman consider introducing legislation to make it an offence to sell for use on cars tyres which do not bear the manufacturer's name? What steps has the hon. Gentleman taken to prosecute dealers who to their knowledge have sold unsafe tyres to be used by the public? Surely this must be an offence under the Trade Descriptions Act.

Mr. Grant: That may be the case. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it may be that existing legislation is adequate to deal with the offence. Any specific cases which are brought to the attention of the Government will be considered carefully with a view to prosecution.

Mr. Bidwell: Will the hon. Gentleman look at the possibility of discriminating between the standards of tyres which may be used on vehicles for agricultural purposes and those used on road vehicles? Will there be proper consulta-

tion with the trade unions concerned— those organising agricultural workers and so on—since it could be equally dangerous to such a worker if there were a burst due to the wall of a tyre not being up to the mark. Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that there is concern among tyre-producing workers in this country about what they claim is the amount of dumping from Japan and Spain?

Mr. Grant: With respect, there is a difference between tyres which one uses for the road and those used for agricultural purposes. I have in mind especially trailers, where there is not such a danger in using tyres of a low standard, though there would be if they were used on roadways. This fact was taken into consideration when the regulations were framed. We are glad to discuss with and consult anyone—trade unions or otherwise—to consider whether the regulations are adequate. As for anti-dumping, we have anti-dumping regulations. I do not think that there is any evidence at the moment that this has arisen because of dumping. If there is evidence of dumping, we can take steps under the existing law.

Mr. Benn: Can the hon. Gentleman assure the House that although the inquiry will proceed, he will not delay necessary action in banning the import of substandard tyres immediately, pending the result of the inquiry? Under British arrangements, these tyres are destroyed by British manufacturers.

Mr. Grant: I assure the House there will be no delay. But it is essential to get all the facts of this case in the first instance.

EXPENDITURE

Ordered,

That Mr. W. W. Hamilton be added to the Expenditure Committee.—[Mr. John Stradling Thomas.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—Mr. Pym.]

TELEVISION FILM

12.10 p.m.

Mr. Patrick Wall: The object of this short debate is to discuss the fate of a film made by the Anglia Television Company at the end of 1971 and beginning of 1972. As far as I know, this film has not been shown publicly. In fact, it has now been virtually impounded by the Independent Broadcasting Authority. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have asked to see the film on a number of occasions and been refused.
It will be recalled that on 12th March the matter was brought to the attention of the House at Question Time, but this had no effect on the IBA. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer) asked whether the Minister was allowed to see this film, and he replied that this was entirely a matter for the IBA. That reply caused a certain amount of surprise.
As a result of these exchanges Motion No. 244 was placed on the Order Paper, the terms of which are:
That this House resents the refusal by the Chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority to allow Members of Parliament to see the film made by Anglia Television which illustrates the strength of public opinion against the decision of the IBA to deprive Anglia of the Belmont Transmitter; and calls upon Lord Aylestone to reconsider this decision.
In the past Parliament has had to exercise its authority against wicked barons, unscrupulous landlords or greedy industrialists. I suggest that today it must use its influence against State boards or their equivalent when they tend to act in a dictatorial fashion. I shall attempt to show that liberty of the subject is involved in this matter, as well as the rights of Members of Parliament to carry out their duties towards their constituents.
Why all this fuss about a film? The key to the film is the future of the Belmont transmitter, located in North Lincolnshire. This transmitter was allocated by the ITA to Anglia Television in 1965 and re-allocated to it in 1967 when the switch was made to colour television.
In 1969, Lord Aylestone, who then became Chairman of the ITA, allocated the new Bilsdale transmitter to the Tyne-Tees Television Company, as it was then

in financial difficulties. Yorkshire Television was to be compensated by transferring Belmont from Anglia to Yorkshire. Anglia naturally protested and, after a certain amount of discussion, offered joint operation of Belmont with Yorkshire. This was refused by the ITA.
Then came the merger of Yorkshire Television with Tyne-Tees Television, creating Trident Television, which is now a very successful company.
In 1972 the new UHF transmitters of Trident Television at Emley Moor and Bilsdale became operational, and both proved to have a better range than was expected. They were able to include in their reception area most of the East Riding and Humberside. I suggest, therefore, that the argument for transferring Belmont from Anglia to Yorkshire has been considerably weakened.
Anglia made this film to illustrate its point of view. It was not an impartial film. Indeed, it was not supposed to be. It was a film by Anglia representing the view of the public in the area, particularly the Humberside area, which is covered by both Yorkshire and Anglia.
The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and my hon. Friends the Members for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) and Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) participated in this film, as did Sir Leo Shultz, the Labour Leader of the Hull Council, Mr. Haydon Glen, the Town Clerk of Hull, Mr. Jim Gordon, the chairman of the Hull Chamber of Commerce, Alderman Petchell, the Leader of the Grimsby Council, Alderman Foster, the Mayor of Barton, and many others in all walks of life. I understand that every speaker in this film opposed the transfer of Belmont.
There were a number of meetings between my right hon. and hon. Friends and Lord Aylestone to try to persuade him to modify the decision that he took in 1969. But they met a brick wall. No concessions were made, and it was firmly stated that no concessions would be made whatever the weight of public opinion or the opinion of all Members of Parliament in the area concerned, which was completely unanimous and nothing to do with party politics.
It was suggested to Lord Aylestone that the problem could be solved by the erection of a booster station to the west


of Hull. However, we were told that this could not be considered as it would form a bad precedent. It was also suggested that there was a moral obligation to Trident Television. But what about the obligation that any public board, such as the IBA, has to public opinion and to local inhabitants who are strongly opposed to the transfer?
Many hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to intervene in the debate. Therefore, I want to keep my remarks as short as possible. However, I must refer to the area—part of which I represent—Humberside. I emphasise straight away—I am sure I shall be supported by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North—that this is not a contest between Yorkshire and Anglia. Both are excellent companies. Both produce excellent programmes. Indeed, both are needed and welcomed on Humberside. However, Lord Aylestone's decision, if implemented, will deprive Humberside of 50 per cent. of its ITV viewing by completely cutting out Anglia.
As I said earlier, the problem could be solved by a booster station to the west of Hull which could relay Emley Moor transmissions for Yorkshire, which could be seen throughout Humberside. As there are areas in my constituency which cannot yet receive Yorkshire Television, this would help Yorkshire and would leave Belmont to Anglia, so that both programmes could be seen throughout Humberside. This is clearly what Humberside wants. Having looked at all the evidence and discussed the matter with Lord Aylestone and my colleagues, I see no real argument against this suggestion, except the administrative convenience of the IBA.
I now come to the responsibility of my right hon. Friend. I hope that I have said enough—I am sure other hon. Members will follow me—to show that public and parliamentary opinion has been overruled by the IBA. This is surely a matter of concern for the Minister.
I have suggested that the whole matter could be resolved by the erection of a booster station at comparatively small cost—I understand about £250,000. I believe that my right hon. Friend has authority to make a direction under Section 18(5) of the Television Act 1964, which provides that

The Postmaster-General may at any time, after consultation with the Authority, by notice in writing require the Authority—
 (b) to install, establish, maintain or use any such additional station, stations or apparatus as may be so specified, situate in such places and complying with such requirements as may be so specified … and it shall be the duty of the Authority to comply with the notice.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will do just that. It would solve the problem of Humberside.
It will be recalled that both my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister have stated that there will be an independent study which can consider this dispute. The point I wish to make to my right hon. Friend is one of timing. Studies or inquiries always take time. It may be that the IBA will decide to issue its contracts for the extension of franchise from July 1974 to 1976 either this month or next month. I should like an assurance that my right hon. Friend will see to it that the IBA does not issue a franchise allocating Belmont until the inquiry has been completed and has reported.
We believe that whatever may have been the justification for the ITA's original decision about Belmont, circumstances have altered, and this decision is no longer justified. I emphasise again that there is no quarrel between Yorkshire and Anglia Television. Humberside wants to retain both, and has a high admiration for both companies and their programmes. We believe, however, that the obstinacy of Lord Aylestone and his senior colleagues will deprive Humberside of a choice of programmes and that this can easily be avoided.
I therefore ask the Minister to intervene and to insist that Members of Parliament should be allowed to see the film, which I believe to be their right, to take action under Section 18 of the Television Act 1964 to ensure that the booster station is set up, and to see that no definite action is taken about Belmont by the IBA until the independent study is completed.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Hon. Members will have noticed the number of speakers who hope to take part in the debate, and the


Minister will wish to make some comments. I remind hon. Members that the debate has only 55 minutes to go.

12.20 p.m.

Mr. George Wallace: I wish to speak in support of the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) and to emphasise that there is no party division on this matter.
In East Anglia as a whole, and particularly in the centre of East Anglia in Norfolk, there is strong local feeling, in spite of what the Chairman of the IBA seems to believe. He may have received one or two letters from old-age pensioners who regretted the transfer of Coronation Street, but the main case has been put by public opinion. One of the latest bodies to support this general plea is the Norfolk County Council. In addition to industrial and trades council interests in the area, the Eastern branch of the Conservative Party came out strongly in support last weekend, and there is a cross-section of support throughout the area.
I am one of the two hon. Members who represent Norwich constituencies, and the Anglia headquarters are in that city. Many years ago I was completely against independent television, but I admit now that Anglia Television has become part of the East Anglian scene, which cannot be said for the BBC.
There has been a great deal of cynical amusement that a film prepared by Anglia Television should be confined to the strongholds of the IBA. I do not understand why. Does the film offend against public decency? If so, Mrs. Whitehouse would be strongly in favour of the film not being shown. But that is not the reason. It was Anglia Television that found the Andy Warhol film and was eventually forced to show it. The standards of Anglia Television are very high and I see no logical reason why the IBA should not give way and at least allow Members of Parliament to see the film.
I understand that an IBA Press officer made some rough references to the standards of Members of Parliament and their responsibilities. But we have the responsibility to look at both sides and to consider the case that has been put forward by Anglia Television. The IBA has committed a ridiculous act of internal

discipline which is contrary to democratic opinion. We are discussing a television company with an extremely fine record. It is the company that produced the Survival films and led the way in cultural television.
There is one angle of the dispute that affects Humberside, but I confine myself to the centre of East Anglia and West Norfolk. A vital part of the East Anglian scene will be thrown into the Yorkshire television area. Yorkshire accents and Yorkshire weather are different. Our local farmers and smallholders will have to look to Yorkshire for their weather forecasts and will not be told anything about the weather in East Anglia. The proportion of local programmes at present is small, but they are vital, personal and well produced.
For West Norfolk a solution is available. I was informed yesterday on the highest authority, namely, the Chairman of IBA, that if the Minister gave instructions for a booster transmitter to enable Anglia programmes to be received in West Norfolk the Authority would be able to carry out those instructions, but that the Minister must take responsibility for allowing West Norfolk to see Yorkshire Television programmes as well as Anglia programmes. What difference does that make? There are not many people in East Anglia who would prefer to see the Yorkshire programmes, apart from one or two exiled Yorkshire people, and there is no reason why this should be insisted upon. The IBA is at the feet of the Minister, and I ask him to consider this case and give us a positive answer today.

12.26 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: The House will join me in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for bringing up this important issue. As one of the people who were in the film, I should like to say how much I regret not having an opportunity to see it, and also—and far more important—how much I regret that other people have been unable to see it. My contribution to the film was to attempt, in a short space of time, to put over the tremendous depth of feeling that exists in my constituency about the proposal to remove the Belmont transmitter from


Anglia and so to deprive my constituents of their regional programmes.
The work that hon. Members on both sides of the House who represent Norfolk constituencies have been doing to try to get this decision reversed and to secure alternative arrangements to take account of local interest has been backed up by the tremendous response in my constituency to a campaign run by our local newspaper—the Lynn News and Advertiser—which, with considerable imagination, has been the catalyst in causing the IBA to accept that there is immense local opposition.
I will mention some of the organisations which have criticised the IBA's decision. There are many parish councils and district councils, the Norfolk County Council, several branches of the Women's Institute, several branches of the Towns-women's Guild, the county and local branch of the National Farmers' Union, the old people's homes, the Norfolk County Association of Women Teachers, the Norfolk Youth and Community Service, the Society of Arts and Sciences, branches of the Royal British Legion, branches of the Chamber of Trade and Commerce, the Federation of Business and Professional Women's Clubs, and so on.
There is no doubt that there is total opposition in my constituency to the proposal to deprive it of its most valued regional programmes. It is a matter of great public concern that all these protests made by Members of Parliament, members of the public writing direct, and leaders of local government, industry and commerce, have fallen on deaf ears.
What price now the statement attributed to the Chairman of the IBA yesterday, "Let the viewers decide"? That was a particularly inept remark. He went on to say,
But make no mistake: every day that passes, more and more power is attributed to television and stronger and stronger will be the temptation to Governments and MPs to try and intervene when so many individual decisions are bound to be decisions that particular individual politicians would not themselves take.
As politicians acting in the interests of our constituents on this issue, we do not seek to persuade the IBA to do anything that it is not bound to do by

its statutory obligations. I suppose one might say that the answerability of the IBA to the public is inadequate, partly because of insufficient definition of that responsibility, and partly due to the arrogance of the present Chairman of the IBA in dismissing as unimportat the views of so many members of the public.
In these circumstances, I welcome the Minister's decision to set up an independent study of coverage problems. I join my hon. Friend the Member for Haltem-price in asking the Minister to press the Chairman of the IBA to take no further action to implement changes until that committee has reported and its report has been published, and decisions have been made on future regional requirements.
I hope that the noble Lord will cooperate with this suggestion, not least in view of his speech, reported in the Evening Standard last night, but also because, unless proper arrangements are made by the IBA to accommodate the legitimate wish of all East Anglians to enjoy a regional service which reflects the special qualities of East Anglian life, Parliament may consider that the IBA is in breach of Section 3(1)(d) of the Television Act and call upon my right hon. Friend to replace the Chairman and members of the Authority.

12.32 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Cohen: I speak as one who did not appear in this film, largely because I was not invited. I suggest that the reason I was not invited is that I might have destroyed the unanimity which seems to have been shown in it—

Miss Joan Hall: Hear, hear.

Mr. Cohen: It is easy to achieve unanimity, provided one is selective about the people who appear in the film—

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: No.

Several Hon. Members rose—

Mr. Cohen: I must say—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It must be clear that if everyone is to have his opportunity to express an opinion we will not be helped by interruptions.

Mr. Cohen: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but I emphasise that point. Hon.


Members may not like it, but it is a point which strikes forcibly those of us who were not invited, and who know the reasons why.
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) for his persistence. Both he and those who support his point of view have obviously been very persistent over a period, as was clearly shown by the historical outline of the situation that he gave us. But may I suggest that persistence in itself is a very poor substitute for common sense? I may well be accused—I will probably be guilty; the same would be true of most of us— of being biased. I am biased in favour of Yorkshire Television, just as those who take the point of view of the hon. Member for Haltemprice are biased in favour of Anglia. It would be wrong to go into the pros and cons, because of the threat of this accusation of bias.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice has requested an independent inquiry. I would argue that an independent inquiry took place and an independent assessment was made by the noble Lord the Chairman of the IBA. Because that assessment and its outcome did not fit in with the views of the hon. Member and those who support him, another independent inquiry is requested.
It is interesting to hear the views of hon. Members representing East Anglia. I am sympathetic to their view, but they will appreciate that I, and some of my colleagues on both sides of the House who represent Yorkshire constituencies, have just as strong a view. I agree entirely about the need for locally-based programmes, but we have talked very much of Humberside and East Anglia, totally ignoring the effect of this suggestion on Yorkshire itself.
Although we started by discussing a film, the discussion has been developed much more widely. If the Belmont transmitter was transferred to Anglia Television instead of Yorkshire, about a third of those who view television in Yorkshire would not be able to get their own local programmes—

Mr. Wall: No.

Mr. Cohen: Yes. I am sorry, but if the Belmont transmitter is transferred to Anglia—

Mr. Wall: It is Anglian.

Mr. Cohen: I know that it is based in Anglia, but if it became part of Anglia Television instead of being transferred to Yorkshire, a third of the people who live in Yorkshire would receive their transmissions from Norwich. [An HON. MEMBER: "It may be good for them."] That is a parochial attitude.
I am prepared to support those who feel that by the introduction of a booster we may be able to help the situation, but it would be wrong if the Minister and the Chairman of the IBA, who has been un-justifiabily attacked and criticised today in a disgraceful manner, were left with the impression that the majority of people here or outside were in favour of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Haltemprice.
Therefore, I must make it clear to the Minister and to the noble Lord that if the issue comes to the crunch, many of us here and many more people outside are prepared to stand up and be counted and fight as strongly for what we believe to be right as are the hon. Member and his friends.

12.37 p.m.

Miss Joan Hall: My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) said that this would not be a party political subject, but it is certainly an emotional one. He made an interesting remark about the liberty of the subject. But, if we follow through that principle, everyone in the country should be able to receive every programme put out by independent television companies. That is neither practicable nor financially viable, so decisions have to be made. There is always someone just outside who does not agree with a decision.
If one is to receive the broadcasts of another company in one's area, there would be a far stronger case for my Keighley constituents receiving Granada than there is for North Humberside receiving Anglia from Norwich. The West Riding has more in common with industrial Lancashire than Humberside has with Norwich. But I am not saying that we should have that facility—just that a case could be made for many areas on the same basis.
But the weakest point of my hon. Friend's argument was the question of the


film which is not being allowed to be shown. As the hon. Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) said, Yorkshire Television could have made that film by including people from the same area putting the case for Yorkshire Television in the same way as leading citizens of my hon. Friend's constituency and from Hull were used to put the case for Norwich. I am sure that there are many leading citizens and even more non-leading citizens who prefer Yorkshire Television to Anglia.

Mr. Wall: My hon. Friend is right, but the point of my argument is that Humberside once received both and wants to continue doing so.

Miss Hall: All I would say to my hon. Friend is, "That is not practicable, and, anyway, please do not be so greedy".
The Chairman of the IBA has made a decision. In this age of waffle, it is a definite decision. I can understand that some hon. Members do not agree with it, but when a decision is made, some always fall outside and do not agree with it. I think that this is the right decision and I hope that the Minister will continue to back up the Chairman's decision.

12.40 p.m.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: There are two points at issue here. The first is the question of the banning of the film, the subject of the debate. The second is about the decision taken.
Dealing briefly with the latter point, my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East (Mr. Cohen) and the hon. Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) said that they could have got other people on the programme to have said what they wanted to say. I was asked to appear, and I said what I wanted to say. I said that my argument was purely and simply one of selfishness. I said that I wanted a choice and that I wanted both programmes, which I could receive and which it was technically possible to maintain in my area.
On my rented television set I am able to receive Yorkshire Television and Anglia Television, and both BBC programmes. Coming from the hon. Member for Keighley, the suggestion that we should have a rejection of choice

seems contrary to the whole of her political philosophy, and it is a foolish premise.
Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, South-East was not asked to appear on the programme because his constituency is not covered by Anglia Television. That is the relevant point. No one is seeking to take anything from anyone which he does not already have. No one is seeking to take one little thing from Yorkshire Television.

Miss Joan Hall: Yes, they are.

Mr. McNamara: They are seeking to take from Anglia something that it has had in the past and has used well and wisely. It is all right to talk about one-third of the people of the area being deprived, but that is humbug. In my home now, and in fact the whole of North Humberside, we can switch on and receive Yorkshire Television from Emley Moor on both transmitters. That is the crux of the matter, and Yorkshire fails on that point.
I say that as a person who loves Yorkshire and Anglia Television. We switch from channel to channel, using all four channels. Sometimes I want to put my boot through the screen when the children misbehave. But we are able to receive Yorkshire and Anglia. That is the important point. The House is being misled if it believes the suggestion being made that by the Belmont transmitter being transferred to Anglia, one-third of Yorkshire will miss its programmes. That is a terrible deception.
I first raised this matter in the House in July 1970, when the issue was first mooted. We have had nothing but shillyshallying and evasion by the IBA since then.
The film is the crux of the issue. There is a moral point at issue. That is whether the IBA is entitled to say that because it does not agree with the contents of this film, which is not morally reprehensible— no hon. Member on the Government side of the House did anything in the film which would make even the tender conscience of the IBA seek to censor it, and nor did I—and does not agree with the arguments about the IBA and the decision, there should be an inhibition on one of the companies involved to prevent it from campaigning against the IBA


decision being altered. Yet the other company is free to campaign. Yorkshire Television did so in my constituency last week. Yorkshire Television campaigned in favour of the decision.
What sort of public accountability of a public corporation is this? This is partiality both ways. It is not a question whether it is right or wrong, but a question of equity. Or is it, as many of us suspect, that because of the strength of the arguments involved in the film and the strength of popular feeling, whether in East Anglia, which is being deprived of a regional programme, or in my area, because we wish to maintain our present freedom of choice, the IBA is afraid to oppose the arguments head on? Somehow or other Lord Aylestone has become holier than the Pope and has introduced his new edict about what can or cannot be right and seen by the public at large, by hon. Members and even the Minister.
As the hon. Member for King's Lynn (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler), the hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) and myself said in our letter to The Times, this is not only censorship but arrogant cowardice.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. Five hon. Members have the opportunity of sharing 15 minutes.

12.44 p.m.

Mr. John Wilkinson: I believe it to be improper for a contracting company in television to seek by means of a publicity film to lobby and to put pressure on the Independent Broadcasting Authority, which is meant independently to adjudicate on behalf of the public what is the best allocation of transmitters. That is the fundamental point at issue over this film.
Whatever the rights and wrong of the case about coverage, I am certain that the whole of Yorkshire can be covered by Yorkshire only television if Yorkshire Television continues to be able to have the Belmont transmitter.
The Humberside area embraces both sides of the River Humber. Yorkshire and Humberside are economic units. They are a regional planning unit.
I served in the Royal Air Force for almost five years in Lincolnshire. I know

Lincolnshire very well. I believe that Lincolnshire has much more to do with Yorkshire than it has with the northern part of East Anglia. For that reason as well, it is right that the Belmont transmitter should be allocated to Yorkshire Television, as the IBA intends.
Economically, Humberside serves South and West Yorkshire. By that, I mean industrial South Yorkshire, and the industrial West Riding. With our entry to the European Economic Community, this will become increasingly evident. It will be the outlet for industrial Yorkshire. Culturally and economically it is part of it. Therefore, I believe that the IBA's decision is absolutely right.

12.46 p.m.

Mr. Thomas Torney: I was very pleased to hear the hon. Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) and the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) refer to the industrial position of the whole of the Humberside area. Far be it from me to dare to say this, but it is necessary to remind hon. Members on both sides of the House who have purely a local interest in this matter that, after all, that area is part of Yorkshire. It will be fed by the industrial regions of Yorkshire, particularly with our entry to the EEC. My constituency forms a part of those industrial regions. In regard to television, those regions are very much a part of Yorkshire.
I have listened carefully to the debate. I was very surprised to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) talking as he did and denying that Yorkshire will not suffer if it does not have the Belmont transmitter. I have received information from experts on this subject. The use of colour television is growing in this country. Thousands of colour sets are produced in my constituency.
I am not a technical man. I shall not attempt to explain technical matters of UHF and VHF. But I am told that in Hull and right up the coast to Scarborough—which is definitely in Yorkshire—we shall have great problems if we do not have the Belmont transmitter to use for colour transmissions. It would mean that one-third of Yorkshire would be served by Norwich. That is the argument in reverse of the way in which it has been advanced by hon. Members who support


the idea that the Belmont transmitter should be given to the Norwich company.
In my few minutes—

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: The hon. Gentleman has had them.

Mr. Torney: —I should like to appeal to the Minister to take account of the situation in which the IBA finds itself. The Minister must surely agree that the task of the IBA is not to deal only with the problems of Anglia or only with those of Yorkshire. It surely must deal with independent broadcasting for the nation as a whole. That is what is behind the decision of the noble Lord, who has to look at the country as a whole.
Because of a freak situation, the people in the Humberside area, who are represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House who have been very vocal, have been in a more fortunate position than the remainder of the country. I am under the impression that broadcasting policy generally is to give the great mass of the country coverage by one independent network, to give it an independent showing on people's television screens if they want it, and to give people the choice of the two BBC channels. That is the present position. We are promised a second independent channel for the future. The mass of the country is getting two BBC channels and one independent channel. One or two freak areas such as this is are sufficiently fortunate to be able to pick up somebody else's channel.
That is precisely the position about which hon. Members are complaining. Yorkshire does not want to transmit to the Anglia area. It does not want to steal anything from the Anglia area. I understand that the booster station could easily be arranged the other way round. It could be arranged at Massingham, thus ensuring that the people of Anglia received Anglia Television. However, the people of Yorkshire want to maintain their television for the whole of Yorkshire, not for two-thirds of it.
Finally, Yorkshire has a fine record in making excellent films and programmes. It not only makes programmes which are sold and used in Yorkshire or seen inadvertently in Anglia. It also makes excellent international award-winning programmes which are sold to all the

other networks in the IBA and are, therefore, seen all over the country.
In Bradford, of which my constituency is part, 56 per cent. of the people with television watch Yorkshire Television. That leaves only 44 per cent. shared between the two BBC channels. When there is talk of public support—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman heard what I said earlier.

Mr. Torney: I am about to conclude, Mr. Deputy Speaker. So much has been said to show Yorkshire up in a bad light that I thought it had to be refuted. I appeal to the Minister to take into account very carefully all the points that have been made by the few of us who have spoken in defence of Yorkshire, before any wild decision is taken.

12.53 p.m.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: We all agree with the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney), but it has nothing to do with our fight. Those in Yorkshire can have their Yorkshire Television. We shall be delighted to let them have it. We would rather have Anglia. Our argument is about choice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Miss Joan Hall) had the nerve to say that we are greedy. We do not want Yorkshire in our part of the world. We will have Anglia and be satisfied— [Interruption.] We are not greedy. We want a choice. We want the choice of Anglia. We do not want Yorkshire.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Wilkinson) said that he served in the Royal Air Force in my area. He must know that a poll was held in my area. If he had had the courtesy to study it before coming to the House he would have known that 93 per cent. of my constituents decided that they would rather have Anglia than Yorkshire.
My hon. Friend talked about other parts of my constituency. It is no secret that the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) would totally support our case if he were here. He represents the most northerly point of North Lincolnshire.
The main point is that we want to see the film. We want to know whether


we can see the film and whether the Minister can see it. If Mary Whitehouse were to say that she did not want to see the film, or if Norris McWhirter were to take out a writ against the Government to ensure that the film could not be shown, it would be shown on every television screen throughout the country next week.
I suggest that we get Lord Longford— [Interruption.] Lord Aylestone is not here—to hear our arguments. The hon. Member for Leeds. South-East (Mr. Cohen) said that we have been very rude about Lord Aylestone, but Lord Aylestone has never had the courtesy to attend one of our debates. He has not come to the lower House to hear our point of view. We should get Lord Longford to say that there are no circumstances in which we can see the film. Then we should have to be able to see it.
We want one question answered by the Minister. Can he see this film? When he has seen it, will he allow us to see it? We will watch a Yorkshire propaganda film as well. We are willing to watch it—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman says that it is propaganda. I accept that. The names have been read out. But whose propaganda is it? Should not the head of every council, every Member of Parliament, and all the constituents, be allowed to conduct propaganda for what they truly want, on behalf of 3 million people and 57 Members of Parliament? Of course they should. Is the Minister allowed to see the film? Will he ensure that we can see it?

12.56 p.m.

Mr. John Spence: I want to get the House into smoother water for a few minutes. I shall not delay it for long.
I have two points to make. First, I accept the decision of the Chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority in relation to the transmitter. In support of that, I want to put before my right hon. Friend two points—one in connection with the decision and the other in connection with the film.
The Authority's responsibility is to ensure the most efficient, effective, and economical coverage of the whole country. Except on the margin, it is not

part of the Authority's responsibility to consider the activities of pressure groups or to take a narrow view in relation to the implementation of its policies. Nothing that has been said in the debate causes me to believe that the Chairman of the Independent Television Authority was wrong in his decision.
My second point concerns the film. My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) may, indeed, have said at the beginning, and intended to say, that this would not be an Anglia versus Yorkshire debate, but it has developed along those lines. I do not think that anyone listening objectively to the debate could truly say that it has not done so.
In view of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Jeffrey Archer), I am horrified to hear that this is a blatant propaganda film. I had suspected it, but I have now been assured that it is. It is a propaganda film from a pressure group which has been named. Such pressure groups are statistically of no consequence. If we are to have a pressure group and are to put forward a film that truly reflects public opinion in the area, let us at least have it statistically accurate, and let it be put forward on the basis that it propertly represents the views of those concerned.
Early Day Motion No. 244 is no more or less than an attack on the independence of the Chairman of the Independent Broadcasting Authority and his ability to decide. It should be rejected. I ask my right hon. Friend to support the chairman and reject the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice that an inquiry be made into the decision.

12.59 p.m.

Dr. Tom Stuttaford: There are one or two misunderstandings. This is no pressure group. This is every elected Member of Parliament for the whole of the Anglia area.

Mr. Wilkinson: They want to get on "the box" themselves.

Dr. Stuttaford: We have very little preference when it comes to getting on "the box'. It must be understood that this is not a large area. It is one area in England which is still based on a rural economy. It has not got


the great industrial riches of Yorkshire. It cannot easily afford to lose a large part of its viewing public and to continue to present to the general public —not only in Anglia, but throughout the country—the way of life which is based on a rural economy. To destroy it would be anti-social, and would take no account of those factors which have made this country great.
That is one point which people have been discussing. The other is this matter of censorship. Our areas has been tied to a regional Press. The purpose of the Press is not only to give but to accept views and, having accepted them, to allow them to be broadcast to the public, whether in print, by word of mouth or on television. We should have no part of censorship. Let us consider what happens when one looks at the South African Press and finds that bits are cut out of the newspapers. There is uproar on both sides of the House. Yet in this country a complete film may be withheld because the views expressed in it do not happen to coincide with the views of the Chairman of the Authority.
The Chairman has been complimented on his powers as a decision maker, but when a decision is taken in total disregard of the views of the local public, the locally represented organisations and local councils, it is no longer the decision of a chairman; it is the decision of a dictator, a man who disregards all the views of those—

Mr. Cohen: No views were included.

Dr. Stuttaford: We did not include Leeds, South-East, because Leeds, South-East does not happen to be in the Anglia television area. Nor did we include Orkney, because Orkney, too, has little interest in Anglia. This film was prepared fairly by a group of people who were not propagandists. They showed no propaganda on their screen, in news items or any other form of television programme. They have played this game in so gentlemanly and easy going a manner that I am absolutely astounded that it received any publicity at all. I hope that the Minister will heed the views of the general public, and that if he cannot change the opinion of the Chairman, the Chairman will be removed.

1.2 p.m.

The Minister of Posts and Telecommunications (Sir John Eden): It is evident that, even though we have debated this subject before, there is still a degree of interest in it among hon. Members in all parts of the House who still welcome the opportunity to express views which clearly are strongly held. The House will, therefore, be grateful for the enterprise of my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) in raising the matter again today.
The House, I suspect, will not be surprised when I say at the outset that the constitutional position remains unchanged. It was explained at length by my predecessor in the debate in July 1970, and it has been repeated many times since. The decision that the use of the Belmont transmitter after 1974 should be allocated to Yorkshire rather than to Anglia Television was made by the Independent Broadcasting Authority and is wholly and solely a matter for the authority.
Under the terms of the Television Act 1964 it is the Authority's duty to provide television services, and to do so through the agency of programme companies acting under contract to the Authority. The terms and conditions of such contracts, including the station or stations which are to transmit the programme provided by each company, are for the Authority to determine, subject, of course, to the various requirements of the Act.
The contracts are not a matter for the Minister, and it would be wrong for the Minister to intervene. I make no apology for that. There is a long tradition in this country that broadcasting is independent of government and, as my right hon. Friend the then Minister of Posts and Telecommunications explained in the debate three years ago, it is important that no Minister should have a direct influence on the way that these contracts are allocated. That is why he and I have been careful not to express views on this decision by the IBA, and that is why I will not express views on this matter today.
I have been asked about the film that was made by Anglia Television to set out the company's case against the Authority's decision. This again is not a matter for me. It is a matter between


the Authority and its contractor. I have not seen the film. If I were to see it, it would imply that contractual arrangements were my concern, which they are not. But it may be helpful to hon. Members if I explain in a little more detail the history of this problem and of the film which Anglia made.
In the summer of 1970 the Authority announced its decision to transfer the use of the Belmont transmitter from Anglia to Yorkshire Television. The transfer was not due to take place for four years, but the Authority considered that this early declaration of intent would help both companies and their audiences to prepare for the change. I think it is fair to say that neither Lord Aylestone nor his colleagues expected such opposition to their proposals. The Chairman of the IBA, of course, has listened to all points of view on this issue. He met deputations which, on at least two occasions, have been led by the right hon. Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland), and I am sure that Lord Aylestone will have given careful thought to all that was said to him.
In October 1971—that is, more than a year after the declaration of intent, if I can call it that—and after considerable public debate of the issue, including a debate in this House, the Authority discussed the Belmont question again. The Authority as a whole reviewed the arguments which had been made against its original decision, but concluded that it should be confirmed. Further consultations between the Authority and Anglia were followed by correspondence between their respective chairmen which led to a decision by the board of Anglia Television not to campaign publicly against the Authority's decision and not to encourage others to do so. As a result of this decision, the film and other material in support of Anglia's case for continued use of the Belmont transmitter were handed over to the Authority.
At this stage only Lord Aylestone and the Director-General had seen the film. Anglia's undertaking not to campaign publicly against the IBA's decision was given on the basis that all members of the Authority would see the film. This they have done. The Authority did not ask for it to be surrendered. The deci-

sion to put the film into the custody of the IBA was made by the Anglia board on its own initiative. The IBA remains in possession of the film in accordance with Anglia's own decision to ask the Authority to keep it and to refrain from any further campaign on this issue. This, and this alone, is why the Authority refuses to allow the film to be seen by a wider audience, even including those who have taken part in the making of the film.

Mr. McNamara: If Anglia were to ask for that film back in order that Members of Parliament could see it, would the IBA accede to that request?

Sir J. Eden: That is entirely a matter between Anglia and the Authority. I have stated exactly how the film now comes to be in the possession of the Authority.
One or two hon. Members have referred to the study of the independent study group which is to be set up. It is quite clear that, although I have not yet published the full terms of reference, the study group, which will begin its work, I hope, before very long, will certainly be able to take into account the various aspects of coverage. I am not quite ready to announce the terms of reference, but I shall do so very soon, and I assure hon. Members that they will not preclude the study group from receiving representations from people in the Belmont area. The group will be able to consider the decision of the IBA and say what it thinks about it.
This is part of the more general problems created by the change from VHF to UHF transmission, to which the hon. Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Torney) referred. These problems, which include that of extending UHF coverage as quickly as possible, will be one of the major topics considered by the study group. It is to be an independent group able to make up its own mind and to recommend accordingly. Obviously, I cannot anticipate what it will say. and I have no power to direct the Authority to defer entering into contracts for the period after 1974 until the study group has reported. However, knowing that it is more than likely that this issue will be looked into, I have little doubt that the Authority will be keen to know the study group's conclusions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice suggested that I should use the powers given to me under Section 18(5)(b) of the Television Act to direct the Authority to build a booster station at Hull. In this way, Hull would be able to receive Yorkshire Television, while Belmont would revert to Anglia. A similar proposal has been made by other hon. Members for the building of a station to provide the Anglia service in North Norfolk.
I have two comments to make on these suggestions. First, although I have the power to direct the IBA to build an additional station, I have no power to direct it to broadcast any particular company's programmes from it. Second, although it is not written into the statute, these powers were given to the Minister to enable him to extend coverage or improve reception. They were not given to enable him to interfere with the allocation of contracts, which Parliament clearly intended to be solely in the hands of the IBA. I conclude, therefore, that it would be wrong for me to use my powers under Section 18 in the way my hon. Friend suggests.

Mr. Wallace: One important point arises from my conversation with Lord Aylestone yesterday. If a direction were given by the Minister to provide the necessary facilities to allow Anglia to be received in West Norfolk in the areas where it will not be received on the removal of the Belmont transmitter, that could be done, could it not?

Sir J. Eden: That would be to give effect to what I should regard as a use of powers, in an issue of this kind, which were provided for a different reason. In other words, they were provided specifically to enable facilities to be established which would extend coverage and improve reception. There is this further point which I make in response to the hon. Gentleman's intervention, and it is of considerable relevance to the task of the study group. It is virtually impossible to look at one section of the country's problems in a matter of this kind in isolation from the total scene. It is an extremely complex matter, similar to the fitting of pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together. If one starts moving one piece in one part of the board, there are repercussive effects in other parts. The study group must, therefore, be allowed to carry

out its work, and the Government have specifically said in the White Paper that it will be looking into all aspects of coverage.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: Does it not follow from what my right hon. Friend has been saying that, quite apart from the question of contracts and which company may or may not be the tenant for the moment of the franchise in a particular area, the question of suitable areas in the long term is not restricted by the Television Act to the IBA and should properly be a matter for the Government to decide?

Sir J. Eden: The question of the extent to which areas receive broadcasting facilities is certainly of direct concern to the Minister, but what then flows from that and the implications which arise for contracts or companies are specifically reserved for the Authority.
I must emphasise—this is well known to all hon. Members—that it is fundamental to the organisation of broadcasting in this country that the Authority, although independent in the day-to-day conduct of its business, is ultimately answerable to Parliament. For this reason, I welcome debates in the House, for they provide a valuable means of conveying to the Authority the views of the public for whose benefit services are provided, and I am sure that the Authority will wish to take fully into account all that has been said today. I am sure that it will be the wish of all hon. Members who have had opportunity to take part in this short debate to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice raising the matter.

HILL FARMING

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Gavin Strang: Although we have had no official statement from the Government in the House, we understand from Press reports that the meeting of the Council of Ministers on agricultural matters was unable to reach agreement and that there will be a further last-ditch effort to reach agreement the weekend after next. A great deal of the publicity surrounding these meetings has related to the prices issue and the pressure on the British Government to minimise the increases in the


prices of agricultural products to be agreed at that meeting. However, it remains clear that for the long-term interests of this country and its agriculture, the EEC draft directive on hill farming, which is also on the agenda for that meeting, is far and away the more important issue.
There is no doubt that if that directive comes into force it will make the most important change in agricultural policy affecting hill farmers since the Agriculture Acts of 1946 and 1947. As it stands, certain parts of the directive are causing the industry concern. My purpose in this debate is to focus attention on those parts which may be of disadvantage to the industry and to try to ensure that the British Government reach the right decisions in Brussels.
Before dealing with the detail of the matter, I say at the outset that I believe that Britain should give the directive a cautious welcome. There is no doubt in my mind—I have always believed this— that the common agricultural policy is totally misguided. It was a bad policy for the Six. It was far too costly, and it was not in the long-term interests of producers within the Common Market. But, if it was bad for them, it is a dead loss for Britain. We have artificially jacked up high prices for the consumer at a time when the nation has to bear a huge cost, with very little back in return from the agriculture fund. It is on the issue of the common agricultural policy that the Labour Party is committed to renegotiate terms when and if we return to power after the next election.
I believe that we should welcome the directive, however, because it offers a way in which we can mitigate the two particularly undesirable effects of the CAP for the British public, namely, the high prices and the disproportionately high net cost to Britain. We shall be able to contain end prices only if we can provide producers with some other form of income support. If we can provide them with direct payments which are similar to the production grants which now exist in this country, that may be the answer. I welcome the directive because it provides one way—it is not sufficient, but it is a step forward—in which we can help to provide money directly for the producer and thus take the pressure off the end

price. In that way, perhaps, in the long term EEC prices will come into line with normal world prices.
We should support the directive provided certain conditions are fulfilled, because we then stand to get a decent return for the British producer. In other words, British farmers will obtain significant help from this directive which is more than can be said for some of the other forms of assistance which are available under the CAP. Not only do I think it should be welcomed by Britain as a whole; I think that it should be given a cautious welcome by the industry. I say that because we have always been worried about the EEC obsession with free competition and its possible implications for our production grants. Here, at least, is one area in which the Community accepts the principle of production grants, where it is codifying within a directive the right to make payments of the kind that we now present to our hill producers.
The industry should also welcome the directive because it recognises the need for special assistance to hill farming areas. It goes a long way towards meeting the assurances that we were given by Ministers at the conclusion of the negotiations—that is, assuming the right decisions are taken under the directive. The industry should also welcome the directive because the principle of relating compensatory payments to production has been accepted.
There was a great deal of talk about simply providing direct income payments to farmers along the lines of social security, which I would have found totally unacceptable. I think that the industry would also have found it unacceptable. It would have been difficult to justify to the electorate and it would have been highly vulnerable in the years ahead. It would also have been distasteful for hill producers to get something akin to social security. I welcome the fact that the principle of headage payments has been accepted.
There is, of course, no doubt about the importance of the directive. It will replace the bulk of the subsidies to our hill farmers—the hill cow subsidy, the hill sheep subsidy and the winter keep subsidy—which will all be incorporated within incentives which can be provided under the directive. More important, it


will provide a framework for future assistance within the Community for aid to hill and marginal farming areas. We are laying down here the conditions which will govern all future incentives and subsidies to hill farmers.
I need not stress to the Minister the importance of the hill farming sector to the agricultural economy because he is a hill farmer. About one-third of the agricultural acreage of the United Kingdom is hill farming. In Scotland it represents about four-fifths. There are about 22,000 units in England and Wales, 25,000 in Scotland and 10,000 in Northern Ireland. So we are talking about a very important group of people, a very important part of our agricultural industry.
The directive is a substantial document and I shall not be able to go into detail as I would like in the time allotted. I should like to place on record my thanks to those people who have discussed the matter with me, the Scottish National Farmers' Union, the National Farmers' Union in England and Wales, and the Highlands and Islands Development Board. I am grateful for the help I have received from them on this important issue. Because I cannot cover as much of the detail as I should like to cover, I want to concentrate on three areas which I think are crucial and where it is important that the Government take the right decisions.
The first and by far the most important question concerns which farming areas in this country will be covered by the directive. It concerns which areas will be defined as the poorer hill farming areas. The criteria for these areas are laid down in Articles 3 and 4 of the directive. There are basically two types of area. There is the poor farming area in mountainous country and the poor farming area threatened with depopulation. I would assume, and I hope that the Minister can give me an assurance on this, that the rate of grant will be the same for both.
It is absolutely imperative that there is a liberal interpretation of Article 4. Article 3, which refers to mountainous areas, is, of course, no use to us and I find it somewhat disturbing that the French should be pressing to confine assistance to mountainous areas. That would be disastrous and, as the Minister knows, it is just not on.
I was interested to note that John Cherrington, writing in the Financial Times this mornng, said that if that were to happen the directive would be "completely valueless" for Britain. Article 4 refers to the depopulation criterion. The infrastructure criterion will present no problems overall for British farming and nor will the income requirement as long as it is defined sensibly. However, there is one point to be raised here. The depopulation refers to the overall population in the area and not to the farming population. This must be watched because there are some poor farming areas where non-farming folk are moving in possibly because the areas are desirable to live in. People have been moving into houses there and commuting into town. Possibly there are developments associated with North Sea oil or possibly there are holiday homes. There are other examples, so we have to be absolutely sure that we do not lose out because of this.
I should like to think that there is no need to go into great detail on the criteria in Article 4 because the Minister will get an agreement which makes sure that the directive covers all our hill farming areas and a reasonable part, perhaps not all, of what we describe as our marginal farming areas. There can be no compromise on the areas which at present receive the hill cow and hill sheep subsidies. It would be totally unacceptable if some of the areas which at present receive these subsidies failed to qualify under this directive. I know that the Minister does not like to talk about using vetoes but he must realise that there can be no sell-out here.
I would assume that there is to be no problem and that national governments will retain a fair degree of flexibility. They are putting up a lot of money and I hope therefore that we shall get a sensible solution. This is the one crunch issue above all others where the Minister must not let us down.
The second issue relates to the various forms of assistance available to hill and poorer farms under the directive. The assistance comes under three headings. First, there are the compensation grants, which are really the headage payments, the replacement of our hill cow and sheep subsidies. Next there are the incentives for farms suitable for development. This category refers largely to another directive relating to poorer farms that qualify


for development plan grants. The third category is simply a fairly miscellaneous list of other measures aimed at assisting farms in the hill areas.
The compensation grants are far and away the most important. The bulk of the money will be spent on them, and it is from them that the producers will receive the bulk of their assistance. The minimum and maximum rates laid down in the directive are not unreasonable. For two-year cattle the minimum will be £9·24 and the maximum £23·10. For one-year to two-year cattle the respective figures are £6·47 and £16·17; for three-month to 12-month cattle, £3·70 and £9·25; and for sheep and goats, £1·39 and £3·47.
Compared with our present grants for the winter keep, those rates are proportionately more generous to the sheep than the cattle. I am not too disturbed about that, because we are expecting a beef incentive scheme, and it is the really poor farming areas that have the sheep. They cannot keep cattle on some of our poorest farms.
Dairy cows are excluded. That exclusion is potentially a little controversial, but I would admit that there is a strong case for excluding them, although I know that not all farmers, particularly in Wales, will agree.
The issue I particularly want to deal with is the limits on the grants to farmers. The maximum proposed per livestock unit is £23·10, which is not too bad. What bothers me is the maximum in Article 8, which says that:
Compensation may not exceed 50 units of account per livestock unit and the total amount thereof may not exceed 50 units of account per hectare of fodder crop area per farm.
That means that a farmer will not be able to receive more than £9·35 per acre of fodder crop area. It depends on the definition of "fodder crop area". The Scottish National Farmers Union has been told that the phrase means—here I quote from its Stop Press statement issued with the March issue of the Farming Leader—
the whole area of land used for grazing the stock, including the open hill",
and the union commented that
this makes the acreage limit more tolerable".

I do not say that it is necessarily fair, but first we must ensure that it is that acreage that we are talking about. To me, the phrase "fodder crop area" means what the Minister and I would call in-bye land, but I understand that for the purposes of the directive we are talking about the whole grazing area. I presume that that is right, and that the Scottish NFU has understood the position correctly.
Even if the Scottish NFU has got it right, the matter is still a cause for concern, because in places such as Orkney there are a number of fairly intensive, fairly small farms, particularly cattle farms, which will be penalised by this upper limit. Therefore, the Minister should try to ensure that a change is made. We want a more flexible acreage limit on the compensatory grants.
I want to say something briefly about the limit to aid to farms that are not poorer farms. Article 12 talks simply about the total maximum per farm being about £3,500. That is potentially a little worrying, because we are referring to the better farms, and there is a limit to any capital grant of 50 per cent. of the relevant investment, which I think we might do without. However, I should not go to the stake on that.
The third important issue is the special position of crofters. The crofting communities in Scotland have a special scheme of assistance which is more generous than the general hill farming scheme. As the directive stands, it is a matter of concern to the crofters. First, there is the statement that the percentage income from non-agricultural activities must not exceed 50 per cent. In the general development plan directive the limit is 20 per cent., but here it is increased to 50 per cent. By definition, crofters are part-time, and very often their other incomes exceed 50 per cent.
Secondly, there is the limit of 50 per cent, in capital grants. The bulk of capital grants that crofters now reecive represents more than 50 per cent. of the total investment. There is a limit on total assistance which I believe includes non-agricultural developments of about £4,500, and when we consider tourist developments that could also be a matter of concern.
There are two real problems for the crofters. The first is that they obtain higher agricultural grants now, which are more than 50 per cent., and that seems to be incompatible with the directive. Secondly, because crofters receive and rightly receive—and should receive more —non-agricultural grants, grants to help tourism and craft industries, these grants should not be restricted by the directive. I see no alternative but to make crofters a special case, as they are now. I trust that that is the line the Minister is adopting in Brussels. It is reasonable that we should obtain that.
Decisions on the directive are to come in about 10 days' time. Therefore, this has been an opportune moment for the debate. The right decisions must be made in Brussels. I hope that the debate will help to stiffen the Government's resolve in the matter. I realise that from the Government's point of view this is rather a delicate time to say much about the bargaining taking place in the Council of Ministers. I know that the Minister will feel that he cannot comment on the attitudes adopted by others, such as the French.
I have referred to three specific issues, of which I have given the Minister advance notice, issues of great importance to the industry. It is reasonable to expect the Minister to give us fairly definitive statements of the Government's position on them.

1.40 p.m.

Mr. James Molyneanx: On behalf of the farming community in Northern Ireland, I support and endorse what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) said. I take the liberty of congratulating him on the timely emphasis which he has placed on the matter, coming, as it does, before a decision on the directive.
Like the Lowlands of Scotland, Northern Ireland has a great deal of marginal land, particularly in the western counties of the Province—for example, Londonderry, Tyrone and Fermanagh. That land amounts, as the hon. Gentleman said, to about 10,000 acres.
A great deal of the livestock-rearing land in Northern Ireland has not qualified for hill subsidies because it is not in the hills. The disability of these areas was

recognised during and after the last war in the form of special grants for marginal land. Those grants were discontinued during the 1950s. The various schemes which replaced them were designed to provide an incentive to livestock rearers in those areas.
The production of store cattle and sheep in the hills and in marginal land must be maintained to supply those who finish the stock in the better land. Because of the increased demand for meat and the reduction in the supply, for example from the South of Ireland, those most concerned with the problem in Northern Ireland are very anxious to see that the directive should be left wherever possible in its present form, but with a widening of the definition of marginal land for grant aid purposes.

1.42 p.m.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I did not wish to take up any time in this debate. However, having heard the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and having been present while the draft directive was discussed by the European Agricultural Committee, I must tell the hon. Gentleman that nearly all the points which he made were argued by the British representatives on the European Agricultural Committee.
The directive may be widened a bit if the suggested amendments which were put forward by the European Parliament are accepted by the Council of Ministers. That might meet some of the points which the hon. Gentleman raised.
Does the hon. Gentleman realise—we did not originally—that this directive needs to be read in conjunction with the earlier directive last year providing for development plans for those farms that can be viable as farms? In that case a great deal more aid is available.

1.44 p.m.

The Minister of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Anthony Stodart): The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) has chosen to raise a highly important and an extremely topical subject. I am genuinely grateful to him for having done so, even if it has meant that he and I will not get home quite as early as otherwise we might. During his thoroughly helpful speech I was not sure whether the area


from which the hon. Gentleman stems is a livestock rearing area. One fact which he did not get wrong was to describe me as a hill farmer. Let me tell him the sad tale that my farm is the last farm before the livestock rearing areas begin. However, it is a subject which, I assure him, has always been close to my heart.
The United Kingdom has a large area of hill land, and farming in those areas has an essential part to play not only as the source of cattle, sheep and wool but as the mainstay of social life of these areas. According to my figures, one-third of the whole of the United Kingdom is hill, and three-quarters of that area is in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman said that the proportion was four-fifths.
One of the factors which contribute to the natural beauty of hill areas is hill farming. I have heard people say that it might be more economic not to breed cattle in the hills but to breed them down on the low ground. That, to my mind, would be the wrong use of land. A stream of stock flows from the reservoir of breeding land up in the high ground.
This is a topical subject, because the Council of Ministers now has the proposed directive under consideration. It will be returning to the subject in about 10 days' time. I should prefer not to comment on some of the attitudes that have been struck by other countries interested in the matter. It is a matter on which we have expressed strong views. In the course of the next quarter of an hour I hope to convince the hon. Gentleman that we shall maintain that position. As the draft directive is still under consideration my remarks must be more in the nature of a running commentary than a final statement.
The Commission put forward the draft directive earlier this year. Discussions in the Council of Ministers have shown that there are many points on which the various member countries have different views. But there is general agreement on the desirability of some Community framework for special aids to areas of special difficulty. At the next meeting of the Council of Ministers we hope to reach agreement on certain basic proposals which will facilitate subsequent agreement on the text of the directive itself, although the text might well

include various modifications of the original draft.
As regards the effect of the draft directive on British agriculture if it were adopted in its present form, I start by saying that in many ways the draft endorses our present policies. Its provisions would, we believe, be broadly adequate to enable all our hill areas to qualify for these special aids. It proposes that special aids could include headage payments on cattle and sheep, which we already give in the hill cow and hill sheep subsidies. It also proposes that there should be special assistance for capital investment in mountain and what I call "difficult" areas. So the Commission's proposals would not involve any major change in our agricultural policies for the hills and uplands.
The draft directive proposes two main types of area for assistance. The hon. Gentleman is right; the rate of grant would be the same. Both would be characterised by relatively low agricultural incomes. There would be mountain areas, defined by steep slopes and a short growing season That takes me back about 10 years to the days in which similar criteria were used for the grading of farms in Scotland. There would be other farming areas, not necessarily mountainous but threatened with depopulation. These areas would be defined by poor land, a low or declining population, and a dependence on agriculture.
Finally, there would be provision for special aids to be given to some small areas with low incomes, which might not have poor land and sparse populations but where farming should be continued to protect the countryside, preserve the tourist potential or protect the coastline. These small areas could not exceed 2½ per cent. of the total area of the member State concerned. In our case that would mean about 400,000 acres.
It would be for member States in the first instance to put forward to the Commission their proposed list of areas to be assisted. The Commission would then submit proposals to the Council of Ministers and it would be for the Council to take the final decision. This procedure leaves room for some flexibility and we see no reason why it should not


prove adequate to cover the areas needing special assistance in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Gentleman is right in his supposition about the crop area. The aid covers all the area used for feeding cattle, including grazing.
With regard to types, there are first to be annual payments to farmers based on the number of stock or the acres of crop. The level of payment is to be fixed by each member State up to a maximum of 50 units of account per cow unit, subject to an overall limit of 50 units of account per hectare—which I believe is still about two and a half acres. One ewe would be regarded as equivalent to 0·15 cow units. There is in England at the moment a restriction on the subsidy which can be given, and thus, on 20 acres, one can get a subsidy on five cows and 50 ewes. Under the new system, it would be a subsidy on eight cows and about 20 ewes.
What we are anxious to achieve, and what we have suggested, is that the overall limit of 50 units of account per hectare might be raised to 60. This point is still open. Fifty units of account comes to rather more than £23, which I admit is a bit below the present level of our hill cow subsidy.
I turn now to the question of investment aids. The draft directive would allow rather more favourable terms to be given to farmers in these special areas who have put forward farm development plans under the Directive 72/159. Details of the scheme, which we shall be introducing later this year under that directive to provide investment aids for potentially viable farms on the basis of farm development plans, are still under consideration. This is a complicated subject and I do not think I would wish to go into it today. In any case, it is not a subject which can be covered in a comparatively short Adjournment debate.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East referred to crofting. The crofters, like other hill farmers, come within the scope of the draft directive. In relation to the main forms of crofter assistance—which are basic and supplementary headage payments and winter keep grants—the directive should not present any major difficulties since, for sheep, the level of

aid permitted is well above that of our hill sheep subsidy and for cattle it is only very slightly less than the present head-age payment for hill cattle.
However, it seems clear that the main obstacle to the continuation of our present crofting assistance lies in Article 12 of the draft directive dealing with investment aid to farms not qualifying for a development plan. In its present form, Article 12 would result in certain limits on investment assistance to most crofters as it would to hill fanners who do not qualify for a development plan. However, this would be offset appreciably, I think, by investment aids for communal schemes under Article 11.
This is an aspect which the hon. Member might wish to consider. I can assure him that the interests of the crofters will be taken fully into account in the negotiations. Perhaps one cheering piece of news is that there is no restriction in the draft directive itself on non-agricultural grants. For example, these could include grants given to crofters by the Highlands and Islands Development Board.
The draft directive also proposes some other measures of assistance, such as a new type of grant to co-operatives and a special grant for young farmers getting themselves established. We and other countries have some doubts about whether these proposals are necessarily desirable. I have often felt that perhaps one could build too high a cliff between the hill areas and those outside. I feel sympathetic towards and have always supported the concept of the hill areas being given additional percentages for drainage and other works, but I think that there could be a danger of overdoing aid, if only—and here again I speak perhaps with feeling—for those just outside.
It would be, to say the least, slightly invidious to give a grant to a man of 37 but to refuse one to a man of 38, or to give a grant to a son who takes over a farm from his father but to refuse one to a son who goes into partnership with his father. This is a matter which one wants to reflect upon rather more. The proposals on co-operatives also involve certain practical difficulties.
Under the Commission's proposals, FEOGA would contribute 50 per cent. to the annual payment to farmers in these special areas and 25 per cent. to the other measures I have mentioned.


The proposals are not agreed but, of course, our present expenditure on hill livestock subsidies, including winter keep payments, is just over £33 million.
Finally, the draft directive includes certain limits on national aid for investment—that is to say, help given to farmers who do not qualify for or prefer not to apply under the Community schemes based on farm development plans under the directive I have referred to. It may well be that many full-time hill farmers would enter the scheme based on farm development plans and would not therefore be affected by the limit. But, as I have said, this is a slightly complicated subject which is still under consideration. In any case, it seems to us that the proposed limits on national aids are too rigid, and a number of other countries share our view.
The question of special aids for the hills, uplands and other difficult areas is still under consideration by the Council of Ministers. It is possible that the Commission's proposals will require some modification, but we think that their main lines are right and that they will broadly meet the needs of our hill areas. I do not think that I should give any impression that there is much likelihood—or even that I think it very desirable—that the hill areas as we understand them today will be extended. Again I speak with feeling.
There is a line, but it is one which is drawn outside what are known as the areas of mountain, hill and heath. Bring it down a little, and there would still be a line with someone else just outside it. I think that we have probably got the definition of where assistance should be given pretty well right, and we have had a good deal of experience in this.
It is important that the common agricultural policy should move away from the attempt to deal with problems of difficult areas by ever-increasing prices which go mainly to the better areas and can lead to burdensome surpluses—and we know all about them. Therefore, I very much agree that in providing selective grants to meet special needs, the draft directive represents a valuable advance in the development or modification of the CAP, and I think it a great

and helpful sign that the Commission seems to be cashing in on the long experience of this country with these extremely useful methods of support.
We hope that at its next meeting the Council of Ministers will be able to reach agreement on the general principles involved so that a satisfactory directive can be approved before long. I am grateful to both the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friends for raising this matter. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East knows the importance which my right hon. Friend and the Government attach to this subject.

WOMEN OFFENDERS (TREATMENT)

2.0 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am glad to have the opportunity to raise an urgent matter that has concerned me considerably during the past few years and to have a chance to speak about it at greater length, and, I hope, to have a better ministerial reply than one can expect at Question Time. The public and the Press have been concerned about these cases.
From my discussions with psychiatrists about women who steal babies it seems to me that they fall into four basic categories. First, there are women with psychopathic problems, with a history of delinquency and a strong desire to have a child of their own, for whom the stealing of a baby is often an attempt to compensate for emotional deprivation in their own lives. Secondly, there are women of low intelligence who regard a baby as a plaything—something that they absolutely must have. Thirdly, there are women who are schizophrenic. Fourthly, there are women whose motive is to try to influence a man by whom they are pregnant, or have been pregnant, where the relationship is insecure and where the offence often follows a miscarriage. They steal a baby and attempt to pass it off as their own, hoping that by having a baby they will win the man back. These are often intelligent and sensitive women. The actual stealing is not premeditated except occasionally in the fourth group. The babies are always well cared for, well fed and well clothed, and they are given a great deal of affection.
I am a mother, and I can well imagine the horror and fear that strike at the heart of a mother when she discovers that her baby has been stolen from its pram outside a shop or supermarket, or wherever she left it. Particularly if the baby is not found for some weeks, her agony must be acute when she does not know whether the baby is alive or dead.
Two cases have exercised me greatly and they illustrate two of the groups. The first case is that of Pauline Jones. This case has aroused more sympathy and interest than any other with which I have been concerned since becoming a Member of Parliament nine years ago. I have had sent to me on her behalf money, cheques, gifts and many offers of hospitality, both short and long term. They come from people who believe, as I do, that she was cruelly treated.
Pauline comes from a comfortably-off family. At the time of the offence she was 23 years of age. She had spent three years in a teacher-training college. She had abandoned the course in order to nurse her mother, to whom she was greatly attached and who was dying of cancer. Soon after her mother's death her father married again. He married his wife's sister, Pauline's aunt.
The marriage was a failure right from the beginning. The effect of the marriage and the fact that the father married whom he did caused great distress to Pauline who had been completely bowled over by her mother's death, although of course it had been expected. It was inevitable that she should find a man whom she thought would give her the love and security that she thought she no longer had in her life. He made her pregnant and abandoned her. She hoped that a child would bring him back but unfortunately she had a miscarriage. This was a great misfortune. She stole baby Denise and kept her for five weeks. After her arrest she told the police:
I had no intention of taking the baby. I saw her in the pram. Something came over me. I must have been out of my mind.
In the event her lover did not return; he married someone else. In court Mr. Justice O'Connor called her "wicked" and sentenced her to three years in prison, a sentence that was reduced on appeal to 21 months. Lord Widgery, the Lord Chief Justice, said:

We would not do this if we thought there was the slightest risk of another child being stolen by this woman.
That seems to show complete ignorance of the reasons why unhappy and disturbed women steal babies.
Pauline was sent to Holloway and then to an open prison. She walked out from there, unable to tolerate the conditions and the company, and so she was sent to Styal. At the time she said that she would rather go back to Holloway and that must have been a cry of despair. I went to see her in Styal and I had a conversation with her in a small office with the deputy governor listening in to our conversation.
Pauline was stripped and searched before being brought into the room. I think that that was evidence of the appalling indignity and unnecessary humiliation of the prison regime. Newspapers sent by her father went astray all too often. Letters were not received and her letters out of prison were heavily censored.
She did a soft furnishing course while in Styal. When she could no longer tolerate the physical attacks of other prisoners and the noise and the conversation and bad language, she asked to be put into solitary confinement, and so she was locked in a cell and given work to do on her own. The work was cutting up small pieces of cloth that were used to stuff the soft toys made in the prison. When there was no material available and she had no work to do, she was not allowed to read or knit and, in her own words, she was made to sit "twiddling her thumbs" and looking at the wall and doing nothing for hours on end.
While in Holloway she suffered from eye and ear trouble, probably psychosomatic in origin. She made two suicide attempts while in Holloway. The Minister of State at the Home Office told me last November that the doctors were satisfied that the purpose of those suicide attempts was simply to seek attention and were not genuine attempts on her life. Of course they were to seek attention; they were anguished cries for help. Nobody tried to find out why she had done so and no help was given. At no time was she given proper psychiatric treatment and at no time was anything done to help her sort out her personal problems. The Under-Secretary told me


that she did not need psychiatric treatment, but 1 think that this history indicates that that was not so.
I should like the Minister to tell us what good prison did for this girl. This case confounds for ever the notion that prison has any therapeutic value.
The second case is that of Jacqueline Padden, who comes into the first category. She is a girl from an unsatisfactory background. She was 19 when she committed the offence. She has a history of low intelligence and delinquency and she was known to the Southend police as a problem teenager. She had been put in care as a little girl for several years. She had no job and she had been in prison for drunkenness. It is quite a history for 19.
She had an illegitimate baby when she was 17 but the baby was taken from her and fostered. The father of the child was in prison serving a three-year sentence. She had been in a mental hospital on three occasions and on at least one she had run away. Clearly this was a psychologically highly disturbed girl who was mentally unstable.
Public opinion was shocked when she was given 21 months' imprisonment when it was not difficult to see that she had no intention of stealing a baby. She met a friend with her own baby who agreed to go with her to the civic centre to inquire about Jacqueline's baby who was fostered. She set off with the pram and she was found 15 minutes later precisely where the women had decided to go in the first place, waiting for her friend to catch her up. She was gaoled for 21 months—for 15 minutes!
The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security told me on 10th November in answer to a parliamentary Question that the courts had made no attempt to get her admitted to hospital for further treatment. About that the Minister must be concerned. In a letter of 8th January he said:
 We would certainly accept the need to look at the provision for such disturbed people.
This is clearly a serious gap in hospital provision. There must be proper hostel or other accommodation for psychiatric treatment, possibly on a group therapy basis. Residential care is needed for some of these women although perhaps

not for all, but certainly skilled care and guidance there must be, and this is not possible in prison.
I know that the Minister will say that we have a psychiatric prison service, but in the atmosphere of prison these women are treated not like patients but like tough criminals. Where the restrictions of the prison regime remain, the women are subject to physical and mental ill-treatment by other prisoners and sometimes by prison officers—for example, as at Styal where Pauline Jones was and where I saw an example of that sort of treatment—and all that prevents a return to a normal state of mind.
It is clear that Section 3 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 is too inflexible when it comes to the psychiatric treatment of young people with a background of mental disturbance. If, as the police said in the Jacqueline Padden case, she was too ill to stand trial, then she was certainly too ill to be sent to prison. We must sort out our priorities. Proper care must be provided. I am not making a party point here. Successive Governments and Ministers have been equally guilty of not making sure that there was proper provision for such cases.
We must ask ourselves whether judges are really competent to sentence in these cases. We need to examine our sentencing policy, the effect of the sentence and what it is that society expects from the sentences. I have been looking at cases in which men have been involved in cruelty to babies. One man who beat his baby son, aged two, to death was given an 18-month suspended sentence. Another, who beat his three-and-a-half month-old baby daughter to death, was given seven years. A man who beat a baby boy to death was given an 18-month suspended sentence. A mother found guilty of wilfully neglecting her five children in a manner likely to cause unnecessary suffering or death was given a six-months' suspended sentence. A man and woman who had two children, and who were not married, were found guilty of brutally beating the two-and-a-half year-old boy and severely maltreating the 20-month-old baby girl. The man was given probation for two years and the woman a six-months suspended sentence.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Lady is


tending to criticise the courts rather than the administration of the Home Office. She should beware of that.

Mrs. Short: I am simply trying to point out that there seems to be neither rhyme nor reason in the present sentencing policy. A Home Office committee is looking at this. I await its report with considerable interest.
We must look back to the position in 1967, when the Estimates Committee looked at prisons, borstals and detention centres. I was the chairman of that Committee. We made a large number of recommendations to the then Home Secretary. One recommendation concerned the sentencing of women. We made strong recommendations that there should be more community care and involvement. Nothing appears to have been done since then, although whenever I have asked successive Home Secretaries I have had the pious reply, "Yes, we are doing something about it."
In effect, nothing is being done. The Jacqueline Padden case is a perfect example of the sort of person who could have benefited from the help which my Committee had in mind. Here the mother and her child should have been fostered together in some sympathetic environment so that some attempt could have been made to teach her how to be a proper mother and so that mother and child could make a new start in life together as a normal family.
I hope that we shall not again have cases in which such women are sentenced to prison. I hope that the Minister will look with favour on the case of another 18-year-old girl who also stole a baby. She was ordered to be detained in a mental hospital by a sympathetic Crown Court judge in Burton-on-Trent. This is the kind of treatment which is demanded for some of these cases and I trust that more imaginative and worthwhile attempts at community care will be considered by the Home Office.

2.14 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) has again expressed her continuing concern with this issue. I am glad that she has raised this matter and given me the opportunity to comment on some of the things she has said. She said

that she hoped that the length of this debate would allow her to receive a better reply from the Minister than she gets at Question Time. All I can say is that she may get a longer one but it will be a matter for her whether it is better. In the words of the late Lord Birkenhead, even if at the end she is none the wiser at least the House may be better informed.
I want to say something about the comments she made towards the end of her speech about the sentencing policy of the courts. I appreciate that she was not making a criticism of the courts, because that would apparently have been out of order. She commented on the type of sentences passed and suggested that there was no appreciable pattern I am sure she will accept from me that the individual sentences which are passed are, and must remain, matters for the judiciary. This is not an issue for Ministers, and I would be wrong to comment on any individual sentences that have been passed.
I accept that the duty of the administration and of Parliament is clearly to lay down the framework within which the judges act and to satisfy ourselves that there is an adequate choice of sentences available to the courts when dealing with these cases which can often be very difficult. Although I may comment about the cases of Pauline Jones and Jacqueline Padden, to which the hon. Lady referred —and another which the hon. Lady did not name and which I will not name, which occurred in the Staffordshire area— I do not intend to comment on particular sentences.
Instead, I shall attempt to relate my remarks more to the general provisions now available. Is there adequate provision for dealing with people of this kind? Without seeking in any way to minimise the problem which cases of this kind create, or without wishing to minimise the problem of women who get into trouble with the courts, it is right to say that we are dealing with a small number of offenders. In itself this presents a problem.
It is perhaps appropriate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there should be a woman in the Chair at this stage. The fact remains that fewer women are convicted than men.

Mrs. Renée Short: They are more law-abiding.

Mr. Carlisle: Apparently. Of those convicted, fewer women are sent to prison than men. Because women are a minority this is inevitably a factor militating against the development of a wide range of special facilities for women offenders. For practical reasons those facilities which are provided have to cater for a much wider geographical area than is the case with the facilities available for male offenders. There is already a wide range of powers available to the courts and a wide range of different forms of treatment for those who have been dealt with by the courts.
Before coming to the individual cases to which the hon. Lady referred, let me remind the House of some of the alternatives which the court has. As the hon. Lady knows, I welcome her persistent attempts to see that imprisonment is kept to the minimum. I very much share her view on that matter. There are various methods whereby people who need psychiatric help may be dealt with in society without custodial sentences. The most obvious and prevalent means is by probation.
A probation order is capable of having included in it certain special requirements. For example, there is power under Section 4 of the Criminal Justice Act 1948 to include a requirement to undergo medical treatment with a view to the improvement of the individual offender's mental condition. Also, as a condition of probation a person may be required to reside in a probation hostel. We have seven such hostels throughout the country. In addition, there are a number of hostels provided by voluntary organisations and again a condition of residence at one of them may be made a term of a probation order. There is a group of hostels which specialise in dealing with specific categories of people. For women convicted of child neglect or in cases where, although a conviction has been in respect of some other offence, there is evidence that training in general household and domestic management and the care of children would be beneficial, there are certain hostels specialising in that form of training to which women can be sent as a condition of probation orders.
Bringing the situation up to date, in the Criminal Justice Act of last year we introduced a new provision which, when it is fully implemented, will allow a court to impose as a condition of a probation order attendance at a day training centre for a period of up to 60 days. An order of that type is concerned more with a male defendant. However, it is equally applicable to a woman who comes before a court, and it is aimed at education in its widest sense, including education in coping with children and with a household.
Although we have to proceed slowly in matters of this nature, we have set up four pilot centres. The problem at the moment is to find the necessary resources. In any Government there is always the need to argue a case for the resources which exist. We hope eventually to extend the system to other parts of the country.
Coming to the cases of disturbed people to whom the hon. Lady referred, may I remind her of the psychiatric facilities which are available? First, as I have said already, there is the power for a court in putting a person on probation to include a condition that that person should undergo medical treatment. There is also the power for a court to make an order for conditional or absolute discharge if it is satisfied that the individual offender is agreeable to receiving voluntary treatment from a general practitioner or at a hospital either as an in-patient or as an out-patient. If the court is satisfied that the person is willing voluntarily to undergo such treatment and it believes that the offender is in need of the treatment, it can give a conditional discharge and rely upon the person's undertaking to accept that treatment. Secondly, it can decide instead to make a probation order with a condition that the offender attends in-patient treatment at a mental hospital. Finally, there is power under Section 60 of the Mental Health Act, where there is medical evidence before the court that the offender is suffering from a specified form of mental disorder and that it is of a nature or degree which warrants detention in hospital for treatment, for the court to make an order requiring the person to be detained at that hospital, with or without a Section 65 order, the effect of which means that the person


cannot be released other than with the consent of the Home Secretary.
The hon. Lady said that in the third case to which she referred that was the type of order which had been made. She suggested that that type of order was a humane way to deal with the girl concerned. As I understood it, the hon. Lady attempted to contrast that with the way in which Pauline Jones and Jacqueline Padden had been dealt with.
Without commenting on the final specific decision made by the court, in the case of Jacqueline Padden I must tell the hon. Lady that no court can make such an order unless there is medical evidence before it from two doctors. If I remember aright, one of them must give evidence in person though the other's may be given in writing. In the case of Jacqueline Padden, the court had before it a social inquiry report and two medical reports, one from a doctor in private practice and one from the medical officer at Holloway Prison. Neither medical report made any recommendation that Miss Padden be detained in hospital under the Mental Health Act. Therefore, even if the judge had wished to do so, he had no power to make such an order. Moreover, the counsel acting for Jacqueline Padden, presumably on her instructions, asked specifically that if a custodial sentence was to be passed Miss Padden should be sent to prison rather than be required to go voluntarily to hospital as a condition of an order, because she had made it clear that she was not prepared to remain in hospital and that if a custodial order was to be made she wished to be sent to prison instead. As I understand it, the court had no power to make the order that the hon. Lady suggests should have been made in that case.
In the case of Pauline Jones, again there was medical evidence before the court. The defence called a consultant psychiatrist to give evidence on behalf of Miss Jones. However, that medical evidence did not suggest that she should be dealt with under the Mental Health Act, and it was never suggested by defence counsel on behalf of Miss Jones that such an order was open to the court. It was quite impossible for the court to make the kind of order that the hon. Lady suggests should have been made since the medical evidence on which it

was required by statute to act did not give the basis for such an order to be made.

Mrs. Renée Short: In the light of Jacqueline Padden's past history of, I think, three different periods in South Ockendon Mental Hospital, does not the hon. and learned Gentleman feel that the advice given to the court was curious, to say the least? Even if the medical evidence did not support a return to South Ockendon, the court could still have decided upon one of the other alternatives referred to by the hon. and learned Gentleman. It was not a question of prison or nothing, was it?

Mr. Carlisle: I do not want to be drawn into commenting on the order that was made. I understand that there was no medical evidence, but there were two medical reports, on which the court could have made a compulsory order under the Mental Health Act. It follows that the court could have made an order with a condition of residence as a voluntary patient in hospital. But, as the hon. Lady said, Miss Padden had, on at least one previous occasion, to use a neutral phrase, removed herself from that establishment. I repeat, the plea that was made on her behalf—and presumably on her instructions—urged the judge that, if he was considering that course, it would be much better that she be sent to prison than returned on an order to attend that hospital.
I turn now to the case of Pauline Jones. I was glad that the hon. Lady said that she understood, as I know she does—I am not trying to be cynical in putting it that way—the concern of the mother whose child had been stolen. Public opinion changes quickly in these matters and occasionally forgets the distress and trauma which must have fallen upon the parents of that child who was taken and kept away for several weeks—from 30th July to 3rd September—with the clearest possible intent on Miss Jones' part permanently to deprive the parents of that child. Whatever may have been the motivation behind Miss Jones' intention —I do not disgree with the hon. Lady's assessment of the fourth class into which she suggested she fell—during the intervening period she had attempted to register the child as her own and had clearly done what she could to indicate that she


proposed permanently to deprive the parents of her.
I am not attempting to put a sympathy vote against a sympathy vote. But we must remember, apart from the attitude being expressed by the public, the dreadful experience that the parents must have gone through during the period that the child was removed from their care. It is true that the child came to no harm in that period, but I would suggest that any judge must take account of the effect that that experience had on the victims, as well as the other matters to which the hon. Lady referred.
After Pauline Jones was sentenced a great deal of public controversy was raised in the papers. I think that the hon. Lady knows that the Home Secretary of the day specifically obtained a psychiatric report on Pauline Jones from a leading and publicly recognised psychiatrist, who confirmed that there was nothing in his psychiatric asessment of her which differed from the evidence which had been before the court at the time that sentence was passed.
The hon. Lady talked about the experiences of Pauline Jones in Styal. The Home Office cannot be responsible for the choice of an individual prisoner voluntarily to be subject to Prison Rule 43 and to withdraw from association with other prisoners. It may be that, as the hon. Lady said, life for her in those conditions was not as full as it could be within the prison setting. But we cannot overlook the fact that it was no decision of the Home Office or of the prison governor; it was a voluntary decision by Miss Jones to exclude herself from other people in this way.
Having referred to the way that people can be dealt with other than by being sent to prison, I turn to the question of the psychiatric care that is available to those for whom the court decides that prison is a necessary sentence. I am fully aware of the hon. Lady's views on this matter. However, I emphasise that if a court decides that it is necessary to impose a custodial sentence it does not mean that the person concerned is deprived of psychiatric care. The hon. Lady knows that in Holloway there are five full-time medical officers, all of whom have psychiatric experience, and that

there are six visiting psycho-therapists. Psychiatric facilities are also available at the girls' borstal at Bullwood, and. although not of the same degree of psychiatric assistance, there is a visiting psycho-therapist at Styal.
When Holloway Prison has been redeveloped there will be more emphasis on medical and psychiatric features. I think I am right in saying—I will correct myself by letter to the hon. Lady if I am wrong—that the newly-appointed Governor of Holloway was a medical officer at the prison. The whole emphasis within the new regime will be towards medical, psychiatric and remedial treatment. We realise that a substantial proportion of the women who are sent to prison are in need of medical assistance of this nature. I assure the hon. Lady that within the restraints imposed on the prison system we provide all the psychiatric help we can in Holloway, and will continue to do so.
It is easy, but not always necessarily accurate, to comment on the sentences passed on the basis of that part of the evidence which appears in newspaper reports. As the hon. Lady said, there are cases of attacks upon children which, on the face of newspaper reports, appear to have been dealt with leniently, and others which appear to have been dealt with severely. But often we do not have the advantage of having a full report which is available to the court on the facts and on the medical and social needs of the individual offender. I believe that we should be strong in retaining the distinction between our job in Parliament and the job of the judiciary. It is our job to see that facilities are available; it is for judges or magistrates who have the whole of the facts before them to decide the necessary sentences which, in society's name, should be passed on individual offenders.
I believe that the course involving the use of the Mental Health Act, which the hon. Lady would have liked to see taken in the cases that she mentioned, was not available to the courts because there was no medical evidence to justify such action. I believe that today, widened slightly by the Criminal Justice Act, we are providing a greater variety of methods to deal with disturbed people who appear before the courts. I hope that in future


years we shall succeed in putting more resources into probation hostels and projects of that nature, so as to give the courts the widest possible alternative availabilities of sentence when deciding what is the appropriate order to make in any case.

CARAVAN SITES

2.40 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: My constituents have suffered intolerably in the last few years from the nuisance caused by unlawful gipsy camp sites. Their anger, disgust and frustration have been compounded by a guilt complex induced by the mass media at the thought of harassing a community which needs help rather than harassment. Well-meaning efforts to help by public authorities, the Government and legislative action have, unfortunately, succeeded only in making the problem worse for the people who have to carry the burden of it.
To quote from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government Circular No. 26 of 1966, in the 1965 census gipsies were referred to as
… so-called gipsies and other travelling people who live in caravans, tents or huts and who make a living by trading and casual work.
At that time the number of gipsies in England and Wales was calculated to be 15,000, or about 3,400 families. One has to put that figure against the total of 170,000 people living in 73,000 caravans on residential sites, that being the figure given by my hon. Friend the Undersecretary of State for the Environment in a Written Answer on 6th March this year. In other words we are dealing with well under 10 per cent. of all caravan dwellers. The 1966 circular describes them as widely scattered all over the country. Of the total of 15,000, 6,000 are children under 16 getting little if any schooling. Most are illiterate. Only 19 per cent. are on licensed sites and the rest are camping haphazardly on farmland, wasteland, commons and roadside verges. Only one-third have access to mains water. The majority have no sanitary or other facilities whatsoever.
It is not surprising that wherever they congregate they arouse the fierce resentment of many of their neighbours, members of the settled community. Their very presence is thought to be a health

hazard. They often frighten children, and many individuals among them are hostile to adults. Their horses and dogs, which roam freely, are a menace to road users and, worst of all, in areas like mine their camps are often filthy eyesores. They leave huge piles of rubbish, when they move on eventually, which have to be cleaned up at the expense of their neighbours, because most of them in my area of London earn their living by stripping and breaking old cars and lorries. They therefore do a great deal of damage to the community, yet they pay no rent, no rates, no income tax, and they seem to spurn even the payment of fines on the infrequent occasions when they are taken to court.
There have been many attempts to solve this problem. The Government started with Circular No. 26 of 1966, which was an attempt by the Government of the day to persuade local authorities to provide throughout the country permanent sites equipped with a minimum of necessary sanitary facilities. Some authorities did so, including my own—the London borough of Bromley —but there has been no alleviation of the local problem. Instead, more gipsies have felt encouraged to come to the area. The remedy appears to have been seen as spreading permanent sites evenly over the whole country in areas to which these people normally go. That was the basis of Part II of the Caravan Sites Act, the main sponsor of which was Lord Avebury, the then hon. Member for Orpington.
Unfortunately, that Act has proved to be a snare and a delusion. Like many measures instigated by well-meaning, liberal but ignorant people, it attempts to provide a simple solution for a complicated problem and ends by making the problem worse. The race relations legislation is another example. The Caravan Sites Act in Section 6 lays upon local authorities the duty to provide adequate permanent sites:
… for gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas.
Not more than 15 pitches are to be provided at any one time, and there are provisions for local authorities to obtain exemption from that statutory duty.
The result has been, first, to increase the pressure on sympathetic local authorities which have already provided per-


manent sites beyond their capacity to provide them. Other local authorities have become even more reluctant to do anything about the problem and seek exemption under the Act.
Secondly, and worse, the result has been that the official attitude of Government—including this Government—has been to soft-pedal the enforcement of law in respect of these unlawful camping sites. The Department of the Environment wrote to one of my constituents who lives in an area which is particularly troubled by this problem— Pratts Bottom—on 14th December 1972, as follows:
We have asked local authorities generally not to needlessly move on gipsy families at a time when there is still a shortage of authorised gipsy caravan sites in the country.
That is an example of the official attitude of complacency and comparative disregard of the problem as it affects people at ground level.
At Question Time on 28th November 1967 the then hon. Member for Chisle-hurst and Sidcup—Mr. Macdonald— asked:
Is the Minister aware that great bitterness is felt among local authorities, and the ratepayers of these authorities, who have actually done something about this? Does he realise that it seems simply to have had the result of attracting travellers into their areas and that they are thus solving other people's problems? "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th November 1967; Vol. 755, c. 226.]
To use an American phrase, "You can say that again." One can indeed say that again, because the position nearly six years and one Act of Parliament later is exactly the same.
The object of that Act was to provide permanent sites for all gipsies. The latest figures given to me by my right hon. Friend on 1st March 1973 showed that 63 sites had been provided, with 907 pitches. One has to put those figures against the 1965 estimate of a total of about 3,400 gipsy families. In a Written Answer on 16th May 1969, the then responsible Minister said that the estimate given in the 1966 circular of total numbers of gipsy families had been increased by 400 since 1965, so that in 1969, there were estimated to be a total of 3,800 gipsy families in England and Wales.
If the gipsy population, in which I include those who follow the gipsy way of

life, whether they be Romanies or Irish tinkers or other itinerant people, has been increasing at the same rate since 1969, then there have been 100 extra families every year and the present total number of gipsy families is now about 4,200, for whom there are only 907 pitches.
The figures for the annual rate of increase in the provision of pitches present a disturbing picture. There were 907 in 1973. According to a Written Answer by the then Minister responsible for local government on 1st March 1969, there were then 402 pitches. In other words, there has been an increase of 505 in four years, or 126 per annum. With the gipsy population rising at the rate of 100 families a year, we are barely keeping pace with the natural increase. There have been 126 extra pitches per year provided over the last eight years, compared with a rise of about 100 extra families in each of those years.
It is true that my right hon. Friend knows of a further 102 proposed sites with a total of 1,577 pitches. But, unlike housing starts, proposed gipsy camp sites remain only an aspiration. Even if all the proposed sites were to become realities, that is a total of only 2,484 pitches, or a little over half the total number of gipsy families.
These figures alone do not show the size of the problem, because these families are by nature itinerant, they are moving about all the time, they go to one area for perhaps only one season in the year. We need perhaps half as many sites again as the overall number of families in order to provide adequate facilities for all of them and to solve the problem in this way—that is to say, if we solve it in the way implicit in the Caravan Sites Act of 1968. But is this the best way of solving the problem? I suggest that it is not.
We must take a new view of the whole problem. By all means let us press on with the requirement on local authorities to provide permanent sites to the extent to which they are and have been so required up to date. By all means let us increase the pressure on local authorities who have not complied with the Act, and by all means let us not allow exemption in cases where it is not justified.
But I suggest that we revise our thinking about the whole problem as well. It is time that we told the gipsy community that they will get help only if they help


themselves to solve this problem. There is no reason why a democratically-elected organisation should not emerge from this community which should be prepared to raise the money to buy property openly, to seek planning permission and to build suitable sites and run them efficiently on a co-operative basis. There need be no charge on the rates. They can provide the facilities for their own community and its members to live openly and proudly as self-respecting members of the community at peace with their neighbours, which I am sure is what they all wish to be.
Second, let local authorities register and annually licence all gipsy caravans entitled to a pitch on a site in their areas. Let us get away from the nonsense of an open-ended commitment towards any gipsy who cares to come into an area, as is the position at the moment. Let every local authority know how many gipsies it is responsible for and to whom it has a responsibility. Let every gipsy family have a right to a pitch in local authority areas, whether provided by local government or by private enterprise of the sort that I have advocated, and let them pay their share of the cost of its provision and proper maintenance.
If we can discard the paternalist spirit of Part II of the Caravan Sites Act and adopt instead the robust attitude of independence characteristic of this little community, we shall have made a real contribution to social harmony in all the areas concerned.

2.58 p.m.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) has spoken of this problem as it affects his constituency. It is known that his constituency has had a particular problem of this kind for a considerable number of years. With respect to him, I would say that my constituency's problem is of a different nature. He represents a London suburb of some reasonable prosperity. I represent a part of Manchester which includes some deprived areas, which are largely clearance areas and which attract caravans.
In my constituency, the itinerants are not gipsies but tinkers and they come in large numbers of caravans, sometimes in dozens of caravans, bringing with them

not only their families but livestock, hens, dogs and even ponies. On one site which I inspected recently, they had a pony on whom they offered rides at 1p a go to children living in the area.
They move into these clearance sites in their caravans, which are often well-equipped and expensive, and they cause a deterioration of circumstances which are pretty intolerable in any case. As each slum clearance area in my constituency has gone down and a vacant site has appeared, the tinkers have moved in with their caravans on to the vacant site, causing a terrible sanitary problem.
They do not have water or any sanitary facilities and they cause great trouble to the remaining people living in the area by knocking at their doors and demanding water and other facilities. Old people are often terrorised by this and in the summer, old people, who have enough to put up with in these deprived areas anyway, are even afraid to sit out in front of their houses to enjoy what summer sun there is in those areas.
There are too many instances of lead being stolen from roofs. I am sorry to say it, but these tinkers who come in their caravans are deeply resented by the people in my constituency adjacent to whom they settle. In the past, when I have communicated with Manchester Corporation about this matter, upon receipt of continuous petitions from my constituents on this subject, the corporation has taken action. Under that action, what has happened is that the itinerants are moved from one slum clearance site to another. When action has been taken— very unpleasant action, too, to those involved—to remove them from the other clearance site, they have moved back to the original site.
I have had petitions from those who, for a period, have been relieved of the burden imposed upon them by these tinkers. When they finally move away, they move into neighbouring constituencies. Having moved from my constituency, for a period they move into the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Marks).
Manchester Corporation has done what is required of it under Part II of the Caravan Sites Act. It has provided a caravan site at a cost of £31,500. It is a satisfactory site, though it cannot provide


sufficient space for all who wish to go there. But we are placed under the burden and disadvantage that too many neighbouring authorities are not fulfilling their responsibilities. Therefore, the city of Manchester—and my constituency very much more than most, at present—is having to put up with this situation because, due to slum clearance, there are vacant sites on to which these intinerants move.
I am the very last person to wish to hound a minority community of any kind. At the same time, I am very conscious of the fact that literally hundreds of my constituents at a time have their lives made burdensome and have their children run the risk of insanitary conditions because of the failure of neighbouring authorities to fulfil their responsibilities under the Caravan Sites Act, as outlined by the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook).
It will be a continuing process for my constituency. We are over the hump in slum clearance, but clearance areas are being designated and there will be more before the process is completed.
Speaking firmly on behalf of those of my constituents who have not yet had to put up with this problem but are liable to have to put up with it, I say that it will not do. Too many of my constituents live in conditions which human beings in the twentieth century ought not to be asked to endure. I am damned if I will ask them to put up with this further inconvenience in areas where the general deterioration which occurs when a compulsory purchase order is announced involves the deterioration of property, dereliction and mess in the streets, and the things which are taking place in the Chorlton-upon-Medlock area and part of the Rusholme area in my constituency.
This is not a matter on which I speak merely academically. I have inspected these conditions in my constituency. When I saw what had happened at the beautiful new estate of Benedict Court because of the slum clearance areas I was horrified that the people from the clearance areas who had moved on to this new estate had to put up with this problem all over again.
I realise the problems involved. I ask the Minister to place great pressure upon those authorities which, unlike Man-

chester City Council, have not fulfilled their responsibilities under the Caravan Sites Act, so that this community should not be driven from pillar to post but, at the same time, so that my constituents can live decent, comfortable lives in surroundings which anyone living in a city has a right to expect.

3.5 p.m.

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I well understand the anxiety of my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stanbrook) and of the hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick (Mr. Kaufman) about the progress in implementing that part of the Caravan Sites Act, 1968 which deals with gipsy encampments.
Let me refute at once my hon. Friend's allegation that there is any feeling of complacency within my Department. My hon. Friend has interpreted an official letter as being one which was soft-pedalling on the law. I assure him that this matter is of very deep concern in my Department. We are determined to make this Act work so far as it is capable of working. But the problem is like a balloon. If one pinches it in one place, it bulges in another. So we cannot use the Act in small areas without seeing the effect in areas surrounding them.
My hon. Friend has in his constituency the encampment at Pratts Bottom on the A21. It always puzzles me why gipsy encampments seem always to land on something "bottom" somewhere. But that site had about 20 caravans at one time. It may be that the GLC proposal to fence off some of that area will improve it, but that is only a temporary expedient.
The hon. Member for Manchester, Ardwick is rather more fortunate than my hon. Friend, because we have designated the Manchester County Borough. The Manchester County Borough provided its site and, therefore, we gave it the extra power to expel unauthorised encampments. I am told that the official site is full and that there is a waiting list. But we have heard good reports in that until shortly before designation took effect there could be anything between 30 and 70 caravans on unauthorised pitches in the Manchester County Borough, but that the number has now dropped to about nine. Thus it has had some good effect.
I appreciate what the hon. Member said about his neighbouring authorities. He will know that the Salford County Borough applied for exemption on the ground that there was not sufficient land in its area for a site and that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State refused that exemption. Salford County Borough has come back again to ask us to reconsider the matter. Therefore, I had better not say anything more about that now.
It is true, however, that a substantial number of authorities have asked for exemption from time to time. Of 29 applications which have recently been decided, 17 have been refused.
The problem of accommodating gipsies has been with us for many years. But with greater pressures on the use of land for houses, roads, schools and all the necessary and desirable developments we want, the difficulties in establishing caravan sites have greatly increased over the last year or two. My hon. Friend called the Caravan Sites Act a snare and a delusion. We have had the Act since 1968. This part of the Act was brought into operation in April 1970. It can be seen as a means of ensuring that adequate provision is made for the accommodation of gipsies.
As the House knows, under the Act a duty was placed on county, county borough and London borough councils to provide adequate accommodation for gipsies residing in or resorting to their areas. For county boroughs and London borough councils, that duty is limited to the provision of accommodation on a site for not more than 15 pitches. Once that site has been established, the authority can ask my right hon. and learned Friend, the Secretary of State, to designate it, giving the authority the greater powers to remove unauthorised camping.
In considering the progress since 1970 when this Part of the Act came into force, I ask the House to bear in mind that the placing of this duty on local authorities to provide sites did not dispense with certain other procedures which are apt to delay the provision of those sites. It did not dispense with the need for planning permission for the use of any particular land for that purpose or, where necessary, compulsory purchase orders.
The 1968 Act introduced a further procedure by giving district councils a right to come to the Secretary of State if they were in dispute with their couny council, and the Secretary of State is called upon to resolve that dispute between the authorities. Where an objection is so referred, the Secretary of State must consider the views of each authority. He then has to decide whether to direct that the proposal should be abandoned or whether it should proceed, subject perhaps to some planning procedural consideration, or indeed whether he should call it in for his own decision.
I must make two points rather forcefully. Legislation requiring the provision of sites—that is, the 1968 Act—by no means removes the opposition by local residents to the establishment of sites. We must recognise that in so far as the problem comes to the Secretary of State. As my hon. Friend said, there is fierce resentment by local residents to any site. That is due to the image residents have of gipsy encampments arising from the unauthorised and ill-equipped encampments.
However, the authorised site with 15 pitches, properly managed, is something entirely different from the type of site we see on the roadside and which is such a revolting sight to the public—what my hon. Friend called the filthy eyesore.
Secondly, it is possible, apart from the 1968 Act, for authorities to deal with the kind of thing which is so revolting to the public. There are powers other than the 1968 Act. There are the powers under the Public Health Act to deal with the nuisances which are concerned with some of the eyesores on the verges of the road or on bomb sites. There is the offence of obstruction of the highway which can be dealt with under the Highways Acts. There is the unauthorised dumping of cars, parts of cars and other things on the highway or other land which can be dealt with under the Civic Amenities Act 1967.
My hon. Friend said that those who commit these nuisances are infrequently taken to court. I am sorry to say that he is right. In some areas it is thought that, because there is no designation under the 1968 Act, nothing can be done. Nothing is further from the truth. Action can be taken under the three statutes I have mentioned.
For whatever reasons the objections are made by local residents, clearly they have


to be considered. As my hon. Friend knows, gipsy site proposals can give rise to intense local feeling. The task of the local authorities, therefore, in discharging the duty which is placed on them and at the same time giving consideration to the views of their ratepayers, is certainly not an easy one. A local authority may well decide not to press on with a proposal because of local opposition.
We in the Department have tried to encourage local authorities as much as possible. The figures which my hon. Friend gave show that we still have a long way to go before sufficient sites will have been provided. Although we recognise their needs, there is a need for greater effort to be made by local authorities in solving this problem.
Because the figures which we received from local authorities last autumn about site provision showed that insufficient progress was being made, we decided to arrange meetings in the regions with the local authorities. We were concerned to ensure that the proposals which local authorities then had of providing another 50 sites during 1973 were implemented. We were also concerned to encourage them to accelerate progress in subsequent years.
With these objects in mind, the Department, through its regional offices, has held meetings within the last month or so with local authorities throughout the country. At these meetings there has been a general recognition of the need to provide sites. However, the real benefit which we hope will result from the meetings will emerge only at a later stage when we know what subsequent action the local authorities are taking. We shall certainly continue to press them to proceed with the provision of these sites.
My hon. Friend put forward some constructive proposals. He expressed to the House his view that the 1968 Act was insufficient and suggested that we should tell the gipsy community to provide sites for itself, thus helping itself. This has been broached with the gipsy community. The Gipsy Council has recently set up a new department—the Romany Site Owners Guild. The stated aims are to improve the overall standards of site provision and to make sure that no chance of private site provision is lost.
The provision by gipsies of properly equipped and managed sites would be a very useful addition to the sites provided by local authorities. I regret that it would not solve the problem of the opposition of residents, but it would certainly be a great supplement to local authority provision.
I assure my hon. Friend that we shall look into his constructive proposals very carefully to see how far they have progressed with the Gipsy Council and with the Romany Site Owners Guild. We hope that with provision by local authorities and by the gipsies themselves in future we shall make progress in solving this very anxious problem.

CHILDREN AND YOUNG PERSONS

3.18 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: I suspect that one of the difficulties of this debate will be to isolate the question in issue from other matters which do not arise for debate today.
I say at once that I am concerned with the constitutional question. Constitutional questions do not arise in a vacuum; they arise out of flesh and blood situations. It is tempting to say that we cannot insulate a constitutional controversy from the merits of the disagre-ment which give rise to it. We all tend to invoke constitutional principles when they support the case which we are advancing for other reasons.
The whole point of constitutional practice is that it preserves particular ways of resolving arguments, irrespective of the content of the argument, irrespective of where political power lies, and irrespective of who, for the moment, is in government. It consists of the methods which have been found best to draw attention to what is in issue so that everyone is alerted to the question and everyone knows where to direct his arguments.
The Americans, with their written constitution, are perhaps more accustomed to continuing discussions on constitutional principles which are insulated from the particular political pressure which led to the argument Perhaps we are more pragmatic. Some might say we are less academic.
When, occasionally, we witness a flagrant disregard for constitutional principle—someone playing right outside the rules—that is the time for all good men to reach for their text books on constitutional thinking.
This question arises from the Children and Young Persons Act 1969. It was an Act which the hon. and learned Member the Minister of State, who was very much concerned will recollect arose from the intention to implement the White Paper "Children in Trouble". The purpose of that Act was stated on Second Reading by the then Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) in three propositions:
First, as a matter of social philosophy, as well as a practical matter, to build on the family and on the parents, to try to ensure that they assume the major responsibility for the welfare, control, care and discipline of their children … Secondly, where the family and the parents cannot succeed without help, to provide effective support for those families through the social and other services which in such cases must supplement the efforts of the parents. Thirdly, by these means to keep out of the courts all those children who will benefit as much, or more, from other treatment as they will by going to court …"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th March 1969; Vol 779, c. 1176.]
The Act contains a number of provisions which have already ben implemented, which is not surprising since the Act is now four years old. It is possible that we should review the provisions which have been implemented already. It is perhaps elementary common sense to look at the proposals which, when they were first debated, seemed good ideas at the time. But those provisions do not concern us today. We are concerned principally with Sections 4, 5 and 7(1).
Section 4 raises the minimum age of criminal responsibility from 10 to 14. Section 5 provides that a young person accused of a criminal offence shall not be dealt with in the courts unless no other appropriate method of dealing with him is apparent. Section 7(1) raises the minimum age for borstal training from 15 to 17. Those provisions have not been implemented, although I understand that the Secretary of State has it in mind to raise the age of criminal responsibility to 17.
There are two other provisions which have not yet been implemented—Section

7(3) which proposes to phase out attendance centres and detention centres, and Section 23 dealing with children and young persons on remand. I understand that the implementation of those provisions awaits the necessary facilities and that it is proposed to implement them in due course.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle) indicated dissent.

Mr. Archer: I see the hon. and learned Gentleman shaking his head. Apparently we are to be deprived even of that. In any event, I was aware that the first three provisions were not to be implemented.
Section 73(2) provides:
This Act shall come into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed under this subsection for different provisions of this Act … 
That is not an unusual provision in a statute. The purpose is to enable the Minister to defer implementaton until the necessary arrangements have been made. The operative word is "defer". The section itself states clearly that the Act shall come into force when the Minister directs. The Secretary of State is quite clear—some of us might say that he is blatantly clear—about the reason why he has not implemented these provisions—not that it has taken four years to make the necessary arrangements but that he has no intention of implementing them because he disagreed with what Parliament said.
The merits of these proposals are open to debate; they were debated on the Floor of the House and in Committee, and the hon. and learned Gentleman played a leading part in those debates. Parliament decided to include these provisions in the statute. The Secretary of State disagreed.
If, as he said, he announced that he was not proposing to implement them in a Written Answer to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) on 26th January 1971, I confess that I did not notice that answer. It is a grim warning which demonstrates the necessity to read the OFFICIAL REPORT, including what I would term the small print. It came to my notice


in a report, in The Times on 15th January this year, of a speech by the Secretary of State for Social Services to the Magistrates' Association stating that the Government had no intention of implementing Sections 1 and 7(1).
On 6th February this year I asked the Secretary of State for Social Services to place a copy of that speech in the Library of the House and, unlike some requests that I have made, I did it precisely because I wanted to read it. In a Written Answer he said that he had not spoken from a prepared text but he promised a full report in the Magistrate early in March. I awaited the March issue of the Magistrate and there, sure enough, was a report of the conference at which the hon. and learned Gentleman himself was present. A very interesting and informative report it was, but there was no word of what the Secretary of State had said about the matter of implementation.
I put down a further Question to the Secretary of State for Social Services asking what plans the Government had to implement the Act. That was transferred to the Home Department, and I make no complaint of that except that on occasion it would be pleasant to question a Minister about his own speech. I do not complain about the answer which I got. I certainly do not complain about the forthrightness of the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer.
To that same Question he read a prepared answer, which was innocuous but failed to deal with the major point. He rectified that deficiency in answer to one of my supplementaries. He was honest to the point of shamelessness. He said:
The object of an implementation clause, as the hon. and learned Gentleman says, is to defer implementation. If, as happened in this case, one Parliament passes legislation but it falls to another Government to decide whether to implement it, they are entitled to decide which parts of the previous Parliament's legislation they will implement and which they will not."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th March 1973; Vol. 853, c. 1519.]
There we have it. Parliament included these provisions in the statute. Then there was a General Election and we had a Secretary of State disagreeing with what Parliament previously said. So he decided not to implement the statute. The hon.

and learned Gentleman enunciates the right to do so as a constitutional principle.
I see at once that there are two possible views on each of these provisions. It is possible to argue persuasively for either view, as the hon. and learned Gentleman did. We had some interesting debates when the statute was being discussed. In fact, he immediately conceded that we did not always debate a lot on purely party lines. I acquired some limited notoriety for putting down rather more amendments than is usual for a Government back-bench Member. It is even possible that if Parliament were invited to do so, it would alter its mind particularly with some persuasion from the Government Whips.
It is quite wrong to take the House for granted and to dispense with the whole of the parliamentary process. I should have thought that even the Government's own supporters would agree with that. If the Government wish to debate these questions again, the proper place to debate them is in this House and in another place. It is a constitutional point but it is by no means academic.
The reason why the House is so jealous of its powers is not for the benefit of Members but for the benefit of the constituents whom they represent. These are ail questions on which the public can make representations to Members, and if they are not satisfied with our reactions they can call us to account at the next General Election. The debates in this House are a sounding board for public opinion which evokes a response from the public. That is why it is important that these issues should be debated publicly here.
I deliberately abstain from expressing any views on the merits of these proposals. I am concerned to protest at an abuse of a power which was entrusted to the Secretary of State for a quite different purpose. The Government can silence our arguments on the merits, but they cannot silence our protests. It is only right to add that this constitutional theory is clothed with flesh and blood, since children whose lives are at the crossroads are entitled at least to the benefit of public debate and a few hours of parliamentary time.

3.29 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Mark Carlisle): May I have leave to speak again?
The hon. and learned Member for Rowley Regis and Tipton (Mr. Peter Archer) made a powerful speech in promoting into a major constitutional issue the answer which I gave him in response to his supplementary question a few weeks ago, when I said that the Government had no intention of implementing certain provisions of the Children and Young Persons Act. He was kind enough to say that he agreed that it was a constitutional principle which could be argued on both sides—

Mr. Peter Archer: I said that the merits of the proposals could be argued on both sides, not the constitutional principle.

Mr. Carlisle: I hope to show that even the constitutional principle which the hon. and learned Gentleman enunciated is open to question, although I note that in answering his future supplementary questions it would be as well for me to remember to be somewhat more polite than I was in showing the firmness and brusqueness which I evinced on that occasion.
In all seriousness, I must remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that the Government have been attacked on three fronts in regard to the Act. There are those who say that we are wrong to decide not to implement certain provisions because we disagree with them. There are those who say that we have deferred bringing certain provisions into force because of local government reorganisation, and that this is killing the Act. Equally, there are those who say that we have implemented the Act prematurely and are, as a result, putting at risk its whole purpose. It seems, therefore, that, whatever decisions the Government have taken or will take about implementation, we are unlikely—I appreciate that this turns partly on the merits—to be free from controversy.
We have implemented those parts of the Act with which we agree and which were capable of immediate implementation. We have said further—I apologise if I looked a little hesitant when the hon. and learned Gentleman made his comment about detention centres—that there are certain other provisions of the Act

which we propose to implement or which we shall probably implement at a stage when we are satisfied that resources and alternative methods are available.
In addition, there are certain provisions —I think that two fall into this category —which the Government do not propose to implement, that is, the raising of the age of prosecution to 14, although, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, we have stated that we shall at some stage go to 12, and Section 5, which would impose limitations on the power of the police to prosecute between the ages of 14 and 17.
I reiterate what I said to the hon. and learned Gentleman at Question Time a few weeks ago. I see nothing constitutionally improper in a Government's taking office and deciding, when it falls to them to implement an Act passed by a previous administration of another party, that they will implement those parts of it with which they agree but not those with which they disagree.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may say—indeed, the hon. Member for Hitchen (Mrs. Shirley Williams) said it from her Front Bench—that, if that be the position, one ought, as a Government, to bring legislation before the House to repeal those parts of the Act which one decides not to implement. However, knowing how great is the constant pressure upon the parliamentary timetable and how many are the matters which hon. Members on both sides are anxious to debate, I wonder whether one would be well received in the House if one took part of the legislative timetable for the purpose of achieving an end which one could achieve by an administrative method, that is, merely by saying that one did not intend to implement a certain part of an Act.
The hon. and learned Gentleman's faith, or lack of faith, in the public opinion polls may be justified, but I feel that it does not do his confidence great credit if he is anxious that this Government should decide to repeal certain provisions of the Act rather than leave them on the statute book so that, after the next election, his party, if it won the election, would be free to implement them without having to pass fresh legislation through the House. His assessment of the chances of that happening may be accurate, but it scarcely shows great


confidence in his party's ability in that situation.
As I say, on the constitutional issue I see no impropriety in our deciding that there are certain parts of the Act which we will not implement. It might have been argued that there was some indication to the contrary if the Government had in any way attempted to cover up their decisions. But, as the hon. and learned Gentleman was kind enough to say, I did not attempt to cover the matter up when he asked me a Question about it recently. He refered also to the occasion when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services made a public speech, and he referred to the Written Answer given in 1971.
In fairness to myself, I should add that the Government's decision on these matters was announced in a speech which I made to a social services conference in September 1970, within three months of the Government's coming into office. I said in that speech that it was not the Government's intention to raise the age of prosecution to 14, although we should at some stage go to 12, and I made clear that we would not implement Section 5. I do not for a moment suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman ought to have seen it, but I must add that there was no attempt not to give publicity to that speech. Indeed, I think I am right in saying that that part of it which dealt with the Government's intentions regarding implementation was widely circulated to all those involved in the courts and the social services.
We took our decision at that time, and only now, two-and-a-half years later, has anyone in the Opposition party raised the constitutional issue.

Mr. Peter Archer: I do not suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman concealed his intentions, but would it not have been constitutionally more proper to make the announcement in the House?

Mr. Carlisle: The announcement was made at a time when the House was not sitting. I do not take that as justification for doing it as we did, but it so happened that I had been invited, as the junior Minister responsible, to address a national conference of social workers on the Children and Young Persons Act and, since the decision had been taken,

it seemed right to announce it in that way.
The decision could have been questioned at any time in the House. Indeed, I was almost surprised at that stage that no Questions were asked about what we had decided. I have always been a little surprised, indeed, that two-and-a-half years passed before anybody raised not the constitutional question but the merits of the decisions we had taken in refusing to implement certain provisions of the Act. It was always open to hon. Members to raise the matter in Parliament, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has done today.
If there has been a change in the political make-up of Parliament, and if the Government are satisfied in these circumstances that they have the support of the majority party in choosing not to implement certain provisions of an Act passed by the previous Administration when it falls to them to decide what to implement, I see nothing constitutionally improper in their announcing that there are certain provisions which they do not propose to implement.
Taking the matter more widely now, I turn to the provisions which we have not implemented for other reasons. We have not, as the hon. and learned Gentleman said, implemented the provision which would raise the age for borstal. The Government have no immediate intention of implementing that, but I should add that, apart from any question of principle, one of the specific reasons is that the previous Government referred the whole issue of what should happen to persons under 21 and the future of the borstal system to the Advisory Council on the Penal System, and we felt that it would be wrong to implement any part of the Act relating to the borstal system until we had received the advisory council's report.
Equally, because we were not satisfied that there was adequate secure provision for persons between 15 and 17 years of age, we would not be justified in implementing at that stage the borstal provision.
The hon. and learned Member was right in saying that we had announced that we were not going to implement the detention centre order provisions at that stage but that we said that consideration


of their implementation would depend upon sufficient availability of adequate alternatives during the intermediate treatment schemes under the supervision order. The reason I looked slightly surprised at the hon. and learned Member was that I cannot at this moment see these sections being implemented in the near future, but he is right in saying that we have never said in principle that we would not do it. But we are absolutely determined that the courts should retain the power to make these orders until we are clearly satisfied that they have the powers they need—and I do not think that time has yet arrived.
I turn now to one other point raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman. He specifically referred to the fact that the third objective of the Act, as set out by the then Home Secretary, was to keep out of court all those children who would benefit as much by other methods as by being brought before a court. Whether or not we have implemented Section 4 or 5, there was never any real difference in the objective of both sides of the Committee stage of the Children and Young Persons Act. On the merits, so far as 10- and 11-year-olds are concerned, in 1968 those prosecuted, as distinct from those cautioned were 50 per cent. By 1971 the proportion prosecuted had fallen to 24 per cent. In the case of juvenile defendants in 1969 the number cautioned was 30·8 per cent.—this relates, of course, to defendants under 17—and in 1970 the figure was 36 per cent. In 1971 the number cautioned had risen to 50 per cent. So the decision not to implement sections 4 and 5 for what we think were clear reasons of principle has not in any way affected what was one of the aims of the Bill, namely, to get a wider use of cautioning and methods of dealing with young people outside of criminal courts.
That has happened. What we objected to in Section 5 was the straitjacket it would impose upon the police, rather than leaving matters of prosecution at their discretion. What we objected to in Section 4 was the double burden of proof requiring both committal of the offence and evidence that the individual

was in need of care and attention which he would not otherwise receive. It was the view we took when in Opposition and the view we now take in Government that it was undesirable to raise to 12 years the age at which people could not be prosecuted, as such. The hon. and learned Member will know that we have implemented those parts of the Act which turn approved schools into community homes. We have implemented that part of the Act which abolishes the right to make an individual approved school order and requires the court to make a care order instead, and we have recently taken a further step in the implementation of the order by the Home Secretary requiring that all those under the age of 12 rather than 10 who have to be under supervision should be supervised by child care officers of the local authority rather than of the probation service.
Therefore, without saying more on the merits, because the hon. and learned Gentleman himself specifically kept off them, I reiterate that we believe we were right, as a Government, and entitled to implement the part of the Act which we had always supported and believed desirable. We have indicated that there are other sections of the Act which we support and which we will implement as resources become available. There is no ground for saying that we were not constitutionally justified in making it clear that there were certain aspects of the Act passed by a previous administration with which we do not agree, and with which I believe a vast majority of the magistracy do not agree—and which we made clear at an early stage we had no intention to implement.
That decision could have been challenged in the House, and to a degree it has been challenged by the hon. and learned Gentleman today. But I refute his suggestion that in coming to that decision and in saying that we were making use of the implementation clause so as not to implement certain aspects of the Act with which we did not agree we were in any way breaking any constitutional principle upon which the democracy of this country depends.

VALUE ADDED TAX

3.45 p.m.

Mr. Ray Carter: Having listened to the Chancellor, the Financial Secretary and the Minister of State this morning dealing with matters associated with VAT and its introduction, and having seen the complacent way in which they dealt with these matters, it is perhaps too much to expect a positive response from one of those very Ministers this afternoon. I am seeking to question the way in which VAT has been introduced, the campaign that accompanied it and the supervision or the supposed supervision that is being conducted as VAT comes into full operation.
There is an appalling amount of confusion outside and no more timely reminder of that could have been possible than the article in The Times yesterday by Penny Symon, who has followed VAT closely since before its introduction, during its introduction and up until the present time. She starts her article off by saying:
Two weeks after the introduction of value-added tax, many items which the Government said would be reduced in price—all of them listed in its official advertisement—have not come down at all.
She goes on to say that on 2nd April, the first full shopping day after the introduction of VAT, she checked 130 items listed in the Government's advertising campaign that should have come down in price. She noted their prices and then went back to check them two weeks later. She found that 80 had come down and 50 had not. She goes on to itemise the various shops, trades, establishments and so forth and the various items of consumer expenditure where no reduction in price has occurred. In view of all the other criticisms from consumer organisations, trading organisations, the Press and so on that have arisen during the introduction of VAT about the way it has been introduced and about the way in which shopkeepers and many other businesses have failed to respond to the need to reduce prices, it raises the whole question whether the Government were ever serious about their intention fully to supervise the introduction of the tax and properly to acquaint the public with the full nature and scope of it.
My view is that they were never serious. In last year's debates on the Finance Bill both on the floor of the House and upstairs in Committee Ministers were urged time and time again to take action then, a year before the introduction of the tax, to ensure that the public and traders, business and comerce, were fully acquainted not only with the substance of VAT but with the way it was to be introduced and the way in which prices would change. They stoutly resisted our arguments at that time and it was only the counter-inflation legislation, the freeze and all that went with it which compelled them to take action. But that is only a few weeks ago. As a result, the campaign has been very much a question of too little and too late.
First, most of the powers that the Government took in the Counter-Inflation Act were devolved upon local authority weights and measures departments. If the Government were ever serious about monitoring prices during the changeover to VAT, the biggest change in our tax system since the Napoleonic wars, when income tax was introduced, a thoroughgoing vetting and supervisory body would have been established. Weights and measures departments were entirely inadequate for that function.
My city of Birmingham, the largest local authority in the country apart from London, made it clear to the Government that it could not, in a city with a million inhabitants and thousands of retail outlets, monitor prices effectively in a way that played fair by the consumer. The Government did not respond by offering help. The local authority would have had to take on many more staff to supervise the changeover, and without such help could not do the necessary job. In the first few days of the changeover, 600 calls a day were going to the weights and measures department, and the officers could not cope. As a consequence of the inability properly to monitor price changes, unjustified prices increases have occurred and have been unchallenged.
I have already raised with the Minister the question of the publicity campaign. On 11th April he kindly replied to my points, which principally concerned the regional Press. Although there are about 1,700 regional newspapers, only 37 carried any advertising about VAT and


the changes in price levels. In his reply to my inquiry why only the national Press had been used, the hon. Gentleman said:
I am sure you will appreciate that funds for national advertising are not unlimited. Therefore, the choice of newspapers always has to be based on the required coverage, the target size, and the available funds.
In that short sentence we obtain some idea of precisely what importance the Government place on proper advertising down to the grass roots. The Chancellor talked about a massive tax change but then he says that only a limited amount of money will be spent on informing the public of the nature of the change. It is not good enough.
In Birmingham the local Press plays an important part in the life of the community. During the introduction of VAT many people have been completely uninformed because of the inadequacy of the Government's advertising campaign. I remind the House of the important part that one local newspaper plays in the life of the community. The Evening Mail has a circulation approaching 400,000 and a daily readership approaching 1 million. Two-thirds of its readers live in Birmingham itself, and there it is read by more people each day than any other newspaper. It gets into 80 per cent. of all households in the city. It also gets into 55 per cent. of households in Solihull and Sutton Cold-field, an area adjoining the city. About one-third of the Evening Mail's housewife readers see no other daily newspaper. Ninety per cent. of advertising relating to retail outlets—that is, where to buy, what, and how much it will cost—goes to the daily and weekly local Press in the city.
I am sure that that picture is mirrored throughout the country. It is appalling that throughout the campaign the local Press, which is read in a way that the national Press is not, has been left out of the advertising campaign.
I turn to the abuses that have arisen during the introduction of VAT, due in part to the Government's failure to carry out a thorough publicity campaign to acquaint the people with the full scope and nature of VAT. SET, together with purchase tax, has been removed. The Minister and his parliamentary colleagues, from the Prime Minister down, said when they were in Opposition that they

would scrap SET. They said that it was an iniquitous tax, which put up prices, including food prices. They promised that with the abolition of SET prices would automatically go down.
But all the evidence I have, and all the evidence that the Press has acquired, is that the service industries, which were the principal bearers of SET, have raised their charges by the full amount of the standard rate of VAT and have not passed on to the public the saving in SET. What inquiries is the Minister making about that? What is the law? What can the Government do to ensure that the service industries pass on to the public the SET that they will not now be paying? On that point alone there is a case for an immediate inquiry.
Those concerned should be told that retrospective action will be taken if it is discovered after three months or even longer that certain industries, trades or professions have not passed on the SET saving.
One of the principal areas of controversy is catering. Even in the catering establishments in the House there are notices telling us that VAT is being levied at the standard rate. I assume that there was an SET component in the previous prices, yet there is no reduction for that.
Probably the bulk of complaints from the public on the changeover to VAT have come from people who obtain most of their food from catering establishments and who discover that the full 10 per cent. has been imposed. Many establishments are not differentiating between food consumed on the premises and food taken away. Food that is taken away should escape VAT altogether, but many establishments are telling their customers that the necessary administrative procedures to separate the two would be far too expensive, and they are levelling the full 10 per cent. on all their sales.
In many hotels and catering establishments the 10 per cent. is being added to bills inclusive of service charges. Is that within the law? I do not think that it is.
In normal retail business, where a ½p is the result of a 10 per cent. increase, the price is rounded up in almost every case to the full 1p. When we talk of ½p


we are talking about 1·2 old pennies, so that is a sizeable figure.
There have been many complaints about contracts made become VAT was introduced. On contracts I made before the introduction of VAT the organisations from which I am purchasing goods or services have told me that I must now pay the full 10 per cent. VAT. Estate agents and solicitors are making the same claim. But here again SET was imposed before, and there should be a reduction on that score alone.
Many people who ordered goods before the introduction of VAT are being told that although they may have placed the order for furniture, jewellery and so on a year ago, and may even have paid most of the cost, they will now be subjected to a 10 per cent. extra charge.
What is the legal position? It is not nearly as clear as the Minister was making out this morning. It is far more complex than that, and some clear guide should now be given. Illogicality has even crept in to VAT. We were promised that VAT was to be a clean tax and one that would get rid of all the stupidities and illogicalities that then applied, but already people are complaining about the zero-rating of children's clothing.
Constituents write to me and, "My child is bigger than the average child; why should not she"—or he—"be able to get clothing which is zero-rated?" There seems to be an appalling muddle. The parents of a larger-than-average child are penalised because they have to pay the full adult rate of tax.
There is continual bemusing of the public by some firms who have absolutely no intention, it seems, of carrying out their proper function of informing the consuming public of precisely what VAT does and the effect which it has upon the goods which they sell. For example, during the Counter-Inflation Bill I raised the fact that Dixons Photographic Ltd. had a campaign before the introduction of VAT, saying "Buy now and beat VAT." I raised that matter in the House and in Committee. As a result, those advertising materials were removed from the windows of Dixons shops and from the pages of newspapers.
Dixons are now advertising that people should buy now and save because of re-

ductions due to VAT. What good does that do? Is it educational to treat consumers in that way? I have no doubt that when the Minister replies he will ask me to give individual cases. I could do that. Indeed, the cases which I have already raised with him are of a general and wide-ranging nature.
There is widespread abuse, particularly in the service industries where SET is not being rebated. The 1 per cent. increase in the cost of living that the Chancellor forecast many months ago has now been shot through the roof. I should not be surprised if a 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. increase was the net result of the introduction of VAT. The real problem about the introduction of VAT is that it occurred at a time when the public was punch-drunk from two years of battering by inflation. With the kind of publicity and educational campaigns that the Government have put out over the past three or four weeks, the public are unable, after two years of prices sky-rocketing, to differentiate between what is a price rise due to VAT and what is a quite normal price increase.
The Government should have realised that VAT would have an explosive effect on prices. In fact, price rises started not weeks before VAT was to be introduced, but last year. The Government should have gone to the schools, to the local authorities and to the trades. Even the trades are as much bemused by the introduction of VAT as are consumers. I do not put the blame on the trade for the confusion. The blame lies clearly with the Government.
It seems from a report in the Sunday Mirror that even the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs is becoming worried. We read that a number of notices have been issued. To whom were these notices issued? How many were there? Have any general notices been sent out to particular sectors of the economy? More important than a notice sent to a launderette or a betting shop is a general notice sent to a trade or business in which abuse is evident.
I want the Financial Secretary to assure the House and the public that the Government will use all the powers available to ensure that, in the coming weeks, the public are not fleeced in the way they obviously have been in the past fortnight. The public are fed up with inflation and


the Government's handling of VAT has merely fed the flames. But I believe that, in spite of VAT, if the Government are serious in their apparent determination to protect the interests of the consumers, there is time for them, in the few weeks which remain to them in the introductory period of VAT, to inform the public that they will protect the interests of the consumers and will issue clear and specific directions to the trades concerned, and indeed, the whole range of industry, particularly those industries upon which selective employment tax was imposed.
The Government must show the public that they intend to take action, if necessary through the courts, to ensure that prices are increased to a justifiable level and no more. The consumers at least deserve that, and the Government should play their part at a highly inflationary time by ensuring that no undue and unnecessary profits and unjustifiable price increases are made during the introduction of VAT.

4.7 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Davidson: My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) has done a great public service by drawing attention to the complacency with which the Government have treated complaint after complaint about the inconsistencies, anomalies, unfairnesses and unjustified price rises which have occurred since the introduction of value added tax. The Government should not think that this is just a party political point. The Daily Express, which tends to go out of its way to try to find something good to say about the Government, headlined its story on the day after the introduction of VAT,
 VAT Blunders its Way In".
The Daily Mirror a little more strident, called the day, "Muddle Monday". The report said:
Britain had its first real taste of VAT yesterday—and the result was one big bellyache.
There were grumbles all round—particularly from people who found that food in canteens and snack-bars cost more.
Customers blamed retailers. And baffled retailers blamed the Government for the problems created by the new tax.
The Financial Secretary ought to come to Accrington Market with me. The people there certainly blame the Government, because they find it very difficult to sort out the complexities of VAT. One of

the reasons for this, of course, is that they have not been properly informed. The Daily Mail said:
In just one week VAT has caused chaos, driven some shopkeepers from business, made others ill and angered housewives who think they are being ' diddled '.
Top of the wives' complaints list are corner sweet shops, hairdressers, launderettes and restaurants.
That is a formidable list.
The Financial Times, as one would expect, was a little more restrained. It said:
Public perplexed by new prices in first full day of VAT".
The Daily Telegraph, which caters for a slightly different market, said:
Ten per cent. on lunches gives many first taste of VAT
The Minister should know that these complaints do not come only from this side of the House: they are widespread, and all the papers cannot be wrong.
Even today at Question Time a whole variety of anomalies were highlighted. They were anomalies to which the Minister himself could not feel indifferent, for he is not a man who is indifferent to the plight of the disabled. Why on earth should cars for the disabled be subject to VAT? Why should kidney machines be subject to VAT? The Minister's answers to these questions were totally unsatisfactory, and I do not accuse him or the Government of being insensitive or indifferent to the plight of the disabled.
Over and over again the newspapers have highlighted almost farcical instances of VAT appearing to be a fantasy tax. Betting is zero rated and yet there have been many complaints about VAT being put on entrance fees into bingo halls. My hon. Friend today has drawn attention to the experience of many of us in restaurants where invariably a full 10 per cent. is added to the bill.
I was in the House when the Conservatives were in opposition and over and over again they became almost hysterical about SET. They said that it was the most iniquitous tax ever, solely responsible for the rise in the cost of living. They told the public that if they backed the Conservatives and got rid of SET, prices would come down. Prices have not come down. Indeed, they have gone up.
Ministers should at least investigate and not treat lightly the fact that the service industries, which spent a good deal of money complaining about and publicising the unfairness of SET, have apparently ignored the dropping of SET and have increased prices with the introduction of VAT. I am not surprised by the Government's complacent attitude to this problem.
The Prime Minister set the tone when he appeared to be totally indifferent to the worst trade figures to be recorded in the country's history. He said that the trade figures should not be judged by one month, but I remember that just before the election, when in one month there was a deficit of £30 million—positive sunshine judged against the current figures—the present Prime Minister said that those trade figures for one month demonstrated that almost the next day there would be devaluation, a grotesque distortion of the facts. Today, he indifferently brushed aside the worst trade figures in our history. It may be that I have strayed slightly from the subject of VAT.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu): Order. The hon. Member will realise that he is encroaching upon the time allowed to his hon. Friend the Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith), if he prolongs his speech further.

Mr. Davidson: I would not dream of doing that. Neither would I want to take any time away from the Minister. I have highlighted some of the anomalies of the system and the total complacency, indifference or ignorance—or possibly all three—exhibited by the Government. I hope that the Minister will show that he is not quite so complacent as he seems.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): Neither the Government nor myself are in any way complacent about the need to supervise the changeover from SET and purchase tax to VAT, or the need fully to inform the public about what is going on. I have taken a close personal interest in the whole of this process, which began a considerable time ago because of the period we allowed for consultation in introducing the tax.
I do not accept, without being complacent, what I can only describe as the grossly exaggerated criticisms which have been put forward by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter). Perhaps I may say a word or two about the remarks of the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. Arthur Davidson). He relied heavily on newspaper headlines the day after the change-over and in the following week. If he will go below the headlines and see to what extent they were really justified by hard news he will find a somewhat different picture. One paper relied almost entirely upon statements made by the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay). I once had the pleasure of speaking on the opposite street corner from the right hon. Gentleman during a General Election. I must say that I thought that I was rather more in touch than he with what was happening in that street market.
None the less, in justification of its headline a national newspaper relied almost entirely upon remarks attributed to the right hon. Gentleman. Although it is news if that kind of impression can be created, it is now generally accepted that, by and large—of course there are exceptions—the change-over has gone reasonably smoothly. It is, as the hon. Member for Northfield said, a major change in our tax system.
In his speech on the Opposition motion last December to defer the introduction of VAT my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said:
But what is absolutely essential is that before next April the man in the street should know how the change will affect him. The Government will, therefore, be taking steps to ensure that the general public fully understand how the abolition of purchase tax and SET and the introduction of VAT will affect their daily purchases of goods and services.
This we have done. My right hon. Friend went on to say that he had no doubt that we would have the full support of the retailing organisations and the overwhelming majority of retailers. This we have had.
He also said that we would take steps to ensure that:
following the change-over to VAT the benefits of tax reductions are passed on in lower prices to the consumer and that prices are not increased by more than is strictly warranted after making full allowance for the abolition of SET and purchase tax."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 5th December 1972; Vol. 847, c. 1128–9.]


This is what we have been doing and are doing. The hon. Member also referred to an article in The Times. In that context it is important to appreciate that some retailers anticipated the changeover and reduced their prices before 1st April. I do not think anyone would complain of that. But one still needs to look at the overall picture, taking the entire period, and it is right that people should do that in comparing prices.
The hon. Member for Northfield criticised the timing of the Government's advertising campaign and said that it should have started earlier because of the need to counter misleading advertisements urging people to buy goods the price of which would come down when the tax was introduced. The hon. Gentleman has raised the point before and I recall giving a specific answer to it. Such advertisements were very few in number, and we did not believe that they were creating a significant distortion.
Both the standard rate of VAT and the final coverage of the tax were integral parts of my right hon. Friend's overall Budget judgment, and had to be considered in that context. That being so, it is clear that it would not have been reasonable to begin the publicity campaign before those fundamental facts were known. However, we brought forward the date of the Budget to the earliest date since 1900, recognising that traders needed adequate notice before the changeover took place.
The hon. Gentleman would not have expected the Government to launch a full publicity campaign before the facts about the standard rate and the coverage were known and then to follow it up with another campaign saying that some of the figures provisionally expected turned out to have been changed in the Budget. That would have caused great confusion and wasted a great deal of public money.
The hon. Gentleman has failed to take sufficient account of the considerable nongovernmental publicity devoted to VAT in the Press and on radio and television. That has been important. All the media have fulfilled an important function in that respect.
The hon. Gentleman spoke as though the Government's campaign was taking place in a vacuum and that it had arrived suddenly and unheralded, three

weeks before the change-over, with no Press or television coverage before it. However, that will not bear examination. There have been many articles in the Press in the past two years explaining VAT in layman's terms. I have written some of them. Since last December when the Consumers' Association, in an excellent and well-balanced article in the magazine Which? set out the changes, there has been a positive spate of features in the Press explaining how the tax changes were likely to operate. In the four months from December 1972 to March 1973 in the national Press alone there were at least 25 articles explaining what prices were likely to go up and what were likely to come down. The Daily Mirror guide on 24th January gave examples on a provisional basis and readers were urged to cut it out and use it when they went shopping. All this spontaneous publicity must be taken fully into account.
The Government's publicity campaign opened on Tuesday 13th March and is still going on. We thought it best to concentrate our main efforts into the three weeks before the changeover and shortly after the introduction of VAT, when it was expected to have the greatest impact. It has had a great impact. There has been an extensive campaign in the Press and on television, and we have given in the guide to shoppers examples of a wide range of key goods and services showing how prices should change. Research has shown that this information was what most people wanted—a detailed guide of the changes. We have given that guide and it has been widely welcomed.
We have also given guidance on specific questions of interest; for example, the one which the hon. Gentleman mentioned about purchases which straddled the date of the change-over, where such considerations as when a job is completed and what amounts have been paid are relevant. There were a number of other matters which we knew from experience to be those which the public in general regarded as the most important. Two sets of advertisements have been devoted to answering those specific questions.
I turn to the point which the hon. Gentleman raised with regard to the


Weights and Measures Inspectorate. There is no reason to think that the inspectors have not had adequate facilities to carry out what we regard as a very important task. Returns that we have had so far show that the inspectors are coping well. We have asked them to give it priority over other work during the transitional period. We hope that it will not be necessary, pending the assumption by the Price Commission of responsibility for price control in phase 2 of the counter-inflation policy, for them to continue to give this the same priority as they do at the moment. But they have been giving it great priority. We believe that in this respect the operation has been successful and effective. I will come to more details on that later.
First, I want to comment on the points made by the hon. Gentleman regarding advertising in local newspapers. He criticised the use of the media in the Government's VAT publicity campaign. Indeed, in Committee on the Finance Bill on 10th April he said:
 the lower-income groups … are unable to question sufficiently intelligently the way the changeover has taken place and the new prices that are being charged simply because they have not been informed through their local newspapers.'—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 10th April 1973; Vol. 854, c. 1192.]
I readily appreciate that some people in these groups do not read the Financial Times, The Times, The Guardian or the Daily Telegraph, but we had a massive publicity campaign in the national Press. In addition, we had a campaign on television where they will have seen the official advertisements informing them that the VAT guide could be obtained through post offices.
It would obviously have been impossible, given that there are restraints on public expenditure, for us to advertise in every newspaper in the country. The Government's policy, which is consistent with the general policy on publicity of successive Governments, has been to select newspapers for an advertising campaign which will provide the most economic return for money spent. Our objective for the VAT campaign was to achieve maximum coverage of the adult population with sufficient frequency of what I believe is termed in the jargon "opportunities to see". On that basis, the strategy was to use both national daily

and Sunday newspapers, together with selected provincial newspapers, where the coverage of the nationals is weaker in a particular region. By this means we believe we covered 95 per cent. of the adult population in the country, which is almost the effective maximum percentage.
Inevitably in this kind of circumstance some newspapers believe that the argument for including them is as good as that for others which were selected. But we must draw the line somewhere, and our decisions were taken in the light of the best available research and experience. I do not think it can be contested that the coverage of the VAT campaign has been extremely wide.
Similarly, we did not merely rely on newspaper advertising; we relied on television advertising and the leaflets which have been available in post offices. Five million copies of the VAT leaflet were available for distribution through 24,000 Crown and sub-post offices throughout the country beginning on Monday, 26th March. There has since been a reprint which was available in good time, and the hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that over 5½ million copies have now been distributed to the general public. That being so, his charge that the Government have not been enthusiastic and efficient in carrying out this publicity campaign does not stand analysis.
I turn now to the supervision of the changeover from SET and purchase tax to VAT. As I said in Committee on the Finance Bill on 10th April, without being complacent about it, the change-over has gone remarkably smoothly. Inevitably, with such a massive change-over it was to be expected that there would be some problems, but the situation in no way resembles the shambles that the hon. Gentleman described and which I believe exists only in the minds of the Opposition. Reports coming in indicate strongly that the great majority of shopkeepers have been anxious to do the right thing by the public and have made price changes in the correct and fair way.
The change has been particularly far-reaching. Many of the complications of the price changes stem not from VAT but from the anomalies in the taxes which it replaces. This is inevitable if we are to get away from the previous system to a more rational basis.

Mr. Carter: Mr. Carter rose—

Mr. Higgins: I hesitate to give way. The hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith) has come in specially this evening to have the last debate and I have a duty, if I catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye, to reply to him. We are almost up to the last minute if the hon. Gentleman is to have time.
The Government have had extensive consultations with the trade interests concerned, and leading retailers and service industries have been asked to let us know precisely how they are passing on their SET savings. Returns are still coming in, but the trade, particularly the food industry, seems to have welcomed the opportunity to augment its normal promotional campaigns by special SET price reductions. The hon. Gentleman may have seen some advertisements directed to that point.
The hon. Gentleman has previously claimed that the Government were not serious in their policy for policing the change-over. This is nonsense. The facts speak for themselves. The Weights and Measures Inspectorate, acting in collaboration with the prices units of the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, have the responsibility for investigating complaints about price adjustments associated with the introduction of VAT. We are getting regular reports from the inspectors about the number of complaints received and the action taken on them. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs told the House last Monday, during the week following the introduction of VAT inspectors received approximately 11,000 complaints about incorrect adjustments of prices and charges on non-food goods and services. There were a further 10,000 complaints concerning the food sector.
It becomes clear from that that, on the one hand, the public made use of the machinery which we provided and that, on the other, as there are more than 600,000 retailers and service outlets, the number of complaints received is very small in relation to the total number of transactions.
The reports we have had also indicate the success of the weights and measures inspectors in securing price reductions without the need to resort to the enforcement procedures provided under the Counter-Inflation Act. Many inquiries proved to be based on a misunderstanding of what the retailer is permitted to do, or could easily be explained without the need for detailed investigation. Of the complaints investigated, the officers concerned have reported that in some 4,000 cases shopkeepers have agreed to reduce prices. That, again, is a figure that is not without significance.
There have been a small number of cases in which the inspectors have reported that they consider prices too high but they have not yet been able to get shopkeepers to reduce them. If they are unsuccessful, the Government stand ready, if necessary, to authorise the issue of a notice under Section 12 of the Counter-Inflation Act restricting the price to a figure which is judged to be fair. The first notices have already been issued and any trader who was the subject of a notice and did not comply with it would render himself liable to prosecution. We do not want to use the powers of enforcement any more than is required, but we shall not hesitate to use them in a case where such action seems to be necessary.
I have listened carefully to what the hon. Members for Northfield and Accring-ton have said. Without being complacent, I believe that we can reasonably claim that the publicity campaign has been cost-effective and is continuing to achieve its objective, and that the policing of the change-over has worked reasonably satisfactorily. One of the great advantages of our parliamentary system is that hon. Members can write to me with specific queries, and I am very happy personally to go into any questions they raise. In that way hon. Members have a direct link with Ministers and are able to know what is going on. At the same time, I rely heavily on reports that come in from all over the country. Those reports and my general impression justify the answers I have given to the hon. Member for North-field.

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT PREMIUM

4.34 p.m.

Mr. John Smith: My purpose in this debate is to draw attention to the decision recently confirmed by the Government to phase out the regional employment premium from September 1974.
The history of this premium goes back to 1967, when the Labour Government introduced it for a guaranteed seven years. The Conservatives opposed it then and in their last election manifesto they sniffed at it. In 1970, during their lame duck period, they said that they would abolish it at the end of the seven years. However, during the re-think of regional policies set out in the White Paper of 1972, the Government's commitment was changed to phasing it out after September 1974 in consultation with both sides of industry. I understand from a parliamentary answer last week that formal consultations with both sides of industry are to start shortly.
I urge the Government to change this decision. There are now widespread fears on both sides of industry and, I believe, within the Government that the abolition of REP will increase regional unemployment. It is worth £100 million a year to the development areas and £40 million to Scotland alone. The Confederation of British Industry, which previously opposed the premium, now asks the Government to keep it for four more years. It predicts regional unemployment increase, if it disappears, of 20,000 to 50,000. The TUC favours its continuation. During the abortive discussion between the TUC and the Government, the retention of REP was one of the factors that the TUC put on the agenda.
Last week, witnesses from the Department of Employment, giving evidence to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Expenditure, admitted that forecasts of 20,000 to 40,000 extra unemployed were accurate.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): I am sorry, but I was distracted and missed the figure for unemployed that the hon. Gentleman gave. Could he repeat it?

Mr. Smith: I was referring to the evidence given by Department of Employment witnesses to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee, when they accepted estimates that at least 20,000 jobs would be lost by the abolition of REP. Mr. J. H. Locke, the Deputy Secretary with oversight of manpower, employment services and training divisions, said that the unemployment range was from 20,000 to 40,000. I quote from The Guardian of 12th April, which I imagine is accurate. No doubt the Minister will be able to tell us whether the Government agree with their civil servants.
I hope that the Government are not irrevocably committed to this decision. We know from this Government's history, particularly in regard to regional development, that in the past events have forced them to think again, particularly over grants to industry in development areas. When they begin formal consultations with industry, I hope that they will not be confined to methods of phasing out REP, and that the Government will keep their minds open to representations that they will receive that it should be retained for at least another four years. I fear the consequences for regional development and employment if REP goes.
No one would dispute that we still face great employment difficulties in many regions. The serious long-term unemployment problem relates not to the overall figure for the United Kingdom but to a deep-seated regional problem that persists in good times and bad. It is part of the accepted history of our economic development since the last war that there has been this persistent regional unemployment, which successive Governments have found difficult to eradicate. This is something which any Government, determined to solve the regional imbalance which bedevils this country's economic performance and creates social and political injustice, ought to have very much in mind.
If REP goes, these large sums of money—£100 million for the development areas as a whole and £40 million for Scotland—will be lost to these areas. This is bound to have an adverse economic effect on the areas. Furthermore, it will go some way to destroying the value of the present regional employment policies.
The value of REP has already been debased, because any incoming industrialist calculating the advantages he would gain on setting up in a development area would already have discounted REP, having been told by the Government that it will start to be phased out in 1974. Therefore, in a sense, the Government are paying out money without getting the incentive value which that money would normally provide. This destroys the value of the whole package of regional development policies.
Some of our present policies could be criticised as being tilted too much in the direction of being capital-intensive. There have already been complaints from all sides of industry and from the regions that far too much emphasis is placed on the capital aspect of regional development policy. This means that very often the Government have to pay out large sums of money to attract an industry which is not labour-intensive for a resultant number of jobs which is not commensurate with the money expended.
REP is the only real element of labour subsidy which we have at present in our package. If it disappears we shall have a regional development policy almost entirely related to capital. That would create an imbalance. It is the wrong way of fashioning a regional development policy.
There is no doubt that increased unemployment will result from the decision to phase out REP. I have mentioned the views put forward by the Confederation of British Industry, which at one time was against REP but in the present situation argues that it should continue. I have also mentioned the views of the TUC to this effect. When both sides of industry ask the Government to keep a policy in being, the Government ought to think again before getting rid of it. On not too many subjects do both sides of industry agree. REP is one of them.
If the Financial Secretary is blind to the arguments coming from both sides of industry, he will surely pay some attention to the evidence given by the Department of Employment to the subcommittee. This evidence was provided by objective analysts of the present situation, and it confirmed the fears expressed by both sides of industry.
No convincing case has been made against REP. I should be glad to hear of the particular objections to REP that the Financial Secretary has. Such research as I have been able to do indicates that there is a growing body of opinion which believes that REP has been a significant factor in holding down unemployment in the regions. A significant body of opinion believes that, if REP goes, harm will be caused to the employment prospects in the regions.
I should like to mention in passing the work done by the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge, which has made studies of REP. The general conclusion that emerged is that REP has been successful.
We must also bear in mind that because REP has been kept at the same level as when it was introduced in 1967, its real value has been dropping. On introduction, REP was about 7 per cent. of labour costs in development areas. The figure is now about 4 per cent., due to the general inflation under both Governments. Therefore, REP as an incentive has been dropping in value. Indeed, there may be a case for doubling REP and extending it to the service industries, which do not attract it at present. Some of the criticism made of REP is that it applies only to manufacturing industries and not to service industries. That defect, if defect it be, could be remedied quickly by extending its application to service industries.
Many of us now believe that we could go further in solving the intractable unemployment problem in the regions if we concentrated on attracting service industries as much as we concentrate on attracting manufacturing industries.
Before the Government take an irrevocable step, I hope that they will listen very carefully to the points made by both sides of industry with increasing urgency as the date for the final consideration of this policy draws near.
I hope that the Government will commission an objective analysis of the effect of the premium. I do not believe that it is good enough in this area of policy to rely upon political prejudice or upon economic hunch or doctrinaire political shibboleths. What the Government must do, because they are dealing with a very important aspect of economic and


social policy, is to go into the matter thoroughly and see whether there is a case, in their view, for carrying on with the premium.
I fear that, if the premium is discontinued, grave harm will be done, not only to my area and the country which I represent, but to development areas all over the country. It is because of my deep fear that if we do not solve the problem of regional imbalance within the next five to 10 years we shall not be able to solve it at all that I ask the Government to think again about the matter.
According to the Government, we are on the edge of an economic boom and expansion is just round the corner. That is the very worst time to harm our regional development policies. If expansion is round the corner, as the Government claim, that is the time to keep all our regional incentives going at full tilt so that their value is spread all over the country and is not confined, as it has sometimes been in the past, to the Midlands and the South-East, and then, when the clampdown occurred after the boom, the development areas bore the brunt of the restrictive measures without having enjoyed the benefit of the boom. I hope that we shall not experience that again.
I urge the Financial Secretary to be converted to the notion of retaining the premium and to urge within the councils of Government that it be kept. If the Government abolish the premium, they will rue the day that they did so. It is an odd thing for a Government to carry on with a policy when so many people are against it. The Government have shown themselves capable of revising their policies in the light of events. I ask them to revise this policy.

4.47 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Terence Higgins): With the leave of the House, I will seek to reply to the debate.
I listened with great interest to the points raised by the hon. Member for Lanarkshire, North (Mr. John Smith). The House will know that the hon. Gentleman has shown a deep and continuing concern with the problems of the regions and with the economic imbalance between them. I believe that the hon. Gentleman's concern with these

problems is widely shared, perhaps universally shared, by hon. Members on both sides. This is borne out by the high priority and the considerable sums of money which successive Governments have devoted to regional problems.
In saying this I do not attempt to disguise the fact that there are marked differences of opinion about the right approach to these problems, but these differences arise, not from any doubt about whether assistance is needed or whether it is important, but rather from a concern about how it can best be provided.
What are the most cost-effective methods? Should we concentrate on labour subsidies to make the assisted areas more competitive against the more prosperous regions? Should we give priority to stimulating capital investment in those areas which would lay the foundations for continuing employment? Or should we do both? These are difficult questions to analyse, as the hon. Gentleman will appreciate.
Although the hon. Gentleman may not go all the way with this Government's answers to that problem, I am sure that he will acknowledge the strength of our purpose in facing up to the problems. In particular he will recall that in the 1972 Budget my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer presented a new and comprehensive programme to stimulate industrial and regional regeneration. This was an intensification of our approach to regional policy which, as the Chancellor said at the time, was designed to give the development areas a more clearcut preference than any previous system.
I am happy to say that these policies and our other economic measures are beginning to bear fruit. The regions are benefiting and the trend of unemployment, both nationally and in the regions, is downwards. This is greatly to be welcomed.

Mr. John Smith: It is still high.

Mr. Higgins: Of course. I understand what the hon. Gentleman says. The level of unemployment is still high. We have a long way to go. The disparities between the more prosperous parts of the country and the assisted areas are still great. There is no difference between


the hon. Gentleman and myself about this. This is a deep-seated problem which cannot be solved quickly. At the same time, I go along with what the hon. Gentleman says, that it is obviously important to do what we can as soon as is reasonable, and that we have sought to do.
I might also inform the House that at the EEC Summit Conference last October it was agreed to give high priority within the Community to regional problems and to set up before the end of the year a regional development fund. We are playing an active role in the Community's discussions on the shape and objectives of the fund, and I hope and believe that the outcome will be a further strengthening of our armoury for dealing with the regional problems of this country.
I turn to the future of the regional employment premium. The hon. Member has asked a specific question, whether I agree that the figure for jobs involved is likely to be at the lower end of the range, which was suggested by DTI officials in evidence to the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee. I accept that a sudden—I stress very much the word "sudden"— ending of REP could put some jobs at risk. It would be rather extraordinary if subsidies, which are running at the order of £100 million a year, could be withdrawn suddenly without having any impact on the jobs which they were designed to preserve or create. But whether there is a loss of jobs, and if so how many, will depend on how and when REP is phased out and on the state of the economy as a whole.
One needs to take into account other regional matters as well. We are not dealing with a static situation. These are questions which need to be analysed and examined in the forthcoming consultations with industry and in coming to a decision on how to give effect to the phasing out.
The hon. Gentleman raised another question. He suggested that without REP or perhaps something like it, the Government's regional measures would be too heavily biased towards capital-intensive projects. I know from my own experience in industry, where I was concerned with appraising the effect of regional investment measures and the problem of plant location, that this has

been a constant theme over the years, whether one should give the incentives in such a way that there is a bias towards capital-intensive or a bias towards labour-intensive projects.
The hon. Gentleman has suggested that without REP the system would be too heavily biased towards capital-intensive projects and would be out of keeping with the needs of areas of high unemployment. As I say, I understand from my own practical experience in industry the point that his is making. I do not think hon. Members who use this argument would wish to imply that the development areas ought not to be enabled to get their share of modern industry of a kind which inevitably requires a high degree of capital investment.
But in any case, I would not accept that there is an imbalance in our range of measures taken as a whole. It is true that those regional investment incentives which take the form of regional development grants, like the national investment incentive which is provided by capital allowances, are given without any requirement for prior approval of the capital expenditure and without any conditions attached as to the number of jobs involved. But this is supplemented by selective regional assistance under Section 7 of the Industry Act, which is given where there is a benefit to employment. These financial inducements are supplemented by intensified plans for training in the development areas and elsewhere, which is important. It would be a great mistake to concentrate on the provision of capital without a commensurate attention to the development of the skills which go with that.
During the period when regional unemployment was particularly severe, we put in hand contra-cyclical programmes of expenditure on both social and environmental infrastructure, and I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that this was the right thing to do. The special measures were designed to serve the short-term objective of relieving unemployment—and we have had some success in that, although there is some way to go—and the longer-term objective of reinforcing our strategy of raising the environmental level of the regions to make them more attractive places in which to work and live.
In his Budget speech in 1972, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the regional employment premium would be phased out over a period from September 1974, and that the rate and method of phasing out would be announced in due course in the light of circumstances at the time and after consultation with industry. Since then, we have kept under continuing review the timing of such consultations. On the one hand, we are conscious of the need to give industry as much warning as possible on how we intend to give effect to the phasing out; on the other hand, our decisions will be governed by the general economic climate and by how effectively we think our overall economic measures are working.
In the light of those two factors, it would be a mistake to take a decision sooner than was necessary. However—

Mr. John Smith: Mr. John Smith rose—

Mr. Higgins: I have very little time, and I wish to say something which I believe will be of interest to the hon. Gentleman. The time has now come for consultations, and I can tell the House that the Departments concerned will be inviting the CBI and the TUC to meetings on this subject shortly after Easter. No doubt, in the coming consultations both the CBI and the TUC will develop the various points which they have in mind. We shall listen to them with interest. We shall take into account the points which are made in the House, including those made by the hon. Gentleman on this and other occasions, and we shall have in mind also the points made in the forum of the Trade and Industry Sub-Committee.
That is the way we intend to proceed. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I cannot anticipate the outcome of those consultations, important and serious as they will be, and he will not expect me to go further today. If I have not answered all his questions, I am ready to give way now if the hon. Gentleman has something else to put to me

Mr. John Smith: The hon. Gentleman said that one of the factors to be taken into account would be the general state of the economy. If unemployment remains at its present high level in the regions—in particular, if it remains higher than it was in 1967—will that factor be taken into account?

Mr. Higgins: That is too hypothetical a question for me to answer at two minutes to five o'clock. What I do stress —I am sure that this is common ground between us—is that all these measures need to be appraised in the light of the broad economic situation. It would be irrational to say that their level and structure ought to be looked at in some abstract way. We are dealing here with human and industrial problems, and, as the figures over the last year have shown, such indicators as unemployment can change rapidly. One is concerned with the whole business of steering and keeping the economy on an even keel and getting as balanced a development as possible.
The effective solution of the regional problem which has dogged this country over so many years is a central feature of economic management, and I should not disagree with the hon. Gentleman for a moment about that. On the specific issue, however, I suggest that we should await the consultations to which I have referred and the further representations which, no doubt, hon. Members on both sides will wish to put to us. We shall then need to put all these matters into the general economic framework and appraise them in the light of the situation at the time so that people in industry, with whose problems I am well familiar, as I have said, may take their own decisions, since ultimately the Government can only set the framework and it is for industry to take the opportunities which are created in the general state of the economy and in the light of the specific measures which are taken.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Five o'clock till Monday 30th April, pursuant to the Resolution of the House yesterday.